Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 19, 2025
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Evaluation of Bone-Implant Interface Stress and Strain Using Heterogeneous Mandibular Bone Properties Based on
Mostafa Omran Hussein1, Mohammed Suliman Alruthea1
1Department of Prosthodontic Sciences, College of Dentistry in Ar Rass, Qassim University, El-Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to compare methods used for calculating heterogeneous patient-specific bone properties used in finite element analysis (FEA), in the field of implant dentistry, with the method based on homogenous bone properties.
Materials And Methods:
In this study, three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography data of an edentulous patient were processed to create a finite element model, and five identical 3D implant models were created and distributed throughout the dental arch. Based on the calculation methods used for bone material assignment, four groups-groups I to IV-were defined. Groups I to III relied on heterogeneous bone property assignment based on different equations, whereas group IV relied on homogenous bone properties. Finally, 150 N vertical and 60-degree-inclined forces were applied at the top of the implant abutments to calculate the von Mises stress and strain.
Results:
Groups I and II presented the highest stress and strain values, respectively. Based on the implant location, differences were observed between the stress values of group I, II, and III compared with group IV; however, no clear order was noted. Accordingly, variable von Mises stress and strain reactions at the bone-implant interface were observed among the heterogeneous bone property groups when compared with the homogenous property group results at the same implant positions.
Conclusion:
Although the use of heterogeneous bone properties as material assignments in FEA studies seem promising for patient-specific analysis, the variations between their results raise doubts about their reliability. The results were influenced by implants' locations leading to misleading clinical simulations.
