Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 30, 2025
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Computational Biomechanical Analysis of Engaging and Nonengaging Abutments for Implant Screw-Retained Fixed Dental
Roberto Savignano1, Pooya Soltanzadeh2, Montry S Suprono1
1Center for Dental Research, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA.
Purpose:
To evaluate the stress distribution, using 3-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA), on different implant components of a mandibular screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) situation when using different combinations of engaging and nonengaging abutments.
Material And Methods:
A model of artificial bone was digitally designed. Dental implants were positioned in the lower right posterior area of teeth #'s 28 (premolar - pm) and 30 (molar - m). Restorative implant components were digitally designed and placed into the implant model. Four different implant abutment situations were simulated through FEA: (1) Both engaging abutments (mE-pmE), (2) both nonengaging (mNE-pmNE), (3) molar nonengaging and premolar engaging (mNE-pmE), and (4) molar engaging and premolar nonengaging (mE-pmNE). Thirty-five (35) Ncm preload to the abutment screws and 160 N static load at 45° angle to the occlusal plane were applied in each group.
Results:
The equivalent Von Mises stress was measured on each component. Stress distribution changed among the different configurations and ranged from 516.0 to 1304.6 MPa in the implants, and from 554.6 to 994.5 MPa with the abutments. Higher stress was found for the mNE-pmNE designs (1078.6-1106.9 MPa). Engaging and nonengaging abutments had different stress distributions on the screw (698.8-902.5 MPa). Peak stress areas were located on the upper part of the screws for the nonengaging configuration, and on the lower areas for the engaging abutments. The sum of the stress on both implants decreased in the following order: mNE-pmNE > mE-pmNE > mNE-pmE > mE-pmE.
Conclusion:
Under conditions of this study, abutment design produced different stress patterns to the implant components. The lowest and most balanced stress distribution was found for the mE-pmE configuration followed by the mNE-pmE configuration.
