The role of cortical zone level and prosthetic platform angle in dental implant mechanical response: A 3D finite element analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 21, 2025
A Finite Element Approach for Locating the Center of Resistance of Maxillary Teeth
Published on: April 8, 2020
Pietro Ausiello1, João Paulo Mendes Tribst2, Maurizio Ventre3
1School of Dentistry, University of Naples Federico II, via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of three different dental implant neck geometries, under a combined compressive/shear load using finite element analysis (FEA). The implant neck was positioned in D2 quality bone at the crestal level or 2 mm below.
Methods:
One dental implant (4.2 × 9 mm) was digitized by reverse engineering techniques using micro CT and imported into Computer Aided Design (CAD) software. Non-uniform rational B-spline surfaces were reconstructed, generating a 3D volumetric model similar to the digitized implant. Three different models were generated with different implant neck configurations, namely 0°, 10° and 20°. D2 quality bone, composed of cortical and trabecular structure, was modeled using data from CT scans. The implants were included in the bone model using a Boolean operation. Two different fixture insertion depths were simulated for each implant: 2 mm below the crestal bone and exactly at the level of the crestal bone. The obtained models were imported to FEA software in STEP format. Von Mises equivalent strains were analyzed for the peri-implant D2 bone type, considering the magnitude and volume of the affected surrounding cortical and trabecular bone. The highest strain values in both cortical and trabecular tissue at the peri-implant bone interface were extracted and compared.
Results:
All implant models were able to distribute the load at the bone-implant contact (BIC) with a similar strain pattern between the models. At the cervical region, however, differences were observed: the models with 10° and 20° implant neck configurations (Model B and C), showed a lower strain magnitude when compared to the straight neck (Model A). These values were significantly lower when the implants were situated at crestal bone levels. In the apical area, no differences in strain values were observed.
Significance:
The implant neck configuration influenced the strain distribution and magnitude in the cortical bone and cancellous bone tissues. To reduce the strain values and improve the load dissipation in the bone tissue, implants with 10° and 20 neck configuration should be preferred instead of straight implant platforms.
