A Comparative Evaluation of Stress Distribution Around Different Widths of Implant and Bony Interface in Function...

The study employed three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) and examined how implant diameters affect stress distribution across the implant-bone contact and how stress transmission through this interface changes during axial and non-axial loading.

A 3D mandibular model was created using cone beam CT of a patient with implants inserted into the first mandible molar. Nobel Biocare implants (Nobel Biocare, Switzerland) with specific dimensions of 3.5 mm, 4.3 mm, 5.0 mm, and 6.0 mm were chosen. Models were created in CATIAV5R19 (Dassault Systemes, France) from threaded titanium implant dimensions. Implants were finite element-modeled utilizing ANSYS Workbench v11.0 (Ansys, Inc, Pennsylvania, USA). The analysis involved applying 100 N axial, 50 N buccolingual, and 50 N mesiodistal loads.

In a lower first molar bone segment, the implant top surface was loaded in 100 N axial, 50 N buccolingual, and 50 N mesiodistal orientations. The cortical bone proximal to the implant neck had the most von Mises stress, regardless of model or stress scenario. In Model I cortical bone, maximal stress was centered at the implant neck. Most stress was on lingual bone plates, lesser on buccal, and least on mesial and distal. Less than half of the implant stress was transmitted to the cortical bone. The stress transferred from the implant to the cortical bone in Model II was less than half of the implant stress. The same was true for Models III and IV. In Model I cancellous bone, stress was concentrated in the implant's coronal half and minimal in the apical half.

The stress patterns under axial loading were distributed favorably. Therefore, it can be inferred that an augmentation in the diameter of the implant enhances the even distribution of stress at the interface between the bone and the implant by offering a larger surface area for the dispersion of stress. Furthermore, it was determined that applying force along an implant's axis was a beneficial loading direction and did not negatively impact its lifespan.