Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Oct 2012

Effects of Different Abutment Connection Designs on the Stress Distribution Around Five Different Implants: A 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

DDS, PhD,
DDS, PhD, and
Prof
Page Range: 491 – 496
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00127
Save
Download PDF

The stability of the bone-implant interface is required for the long-term favorable clinical outcome of implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation. The implant failures that occur after the functional loading are mainly related to biomechanical factors. Micro movements and vibrations due to occlusal forces can lead to mechanical complications such as loosening of the screw and fractures of the abutment or implants. The aim of this study was to investigate the strain distributions in the connection areas of different implant-abutment connection systems under similar loading conditions. Five different implant-abutment connection designs from 5 different manufacturers were evaluated in this study. The investigation was performed with software using the finite element method. The geometrical modeling of the implant systems was done with CATIA virtual design software. The MSC NASTRAN solver and PATRAN postprocessing program were used to perform the linear static solution. According to the analysis, the implant-abutment connection system with external hexagonal connection showed the highest strain values, and the internal hexagonal implant-abutment connection system showed the lowest strain values. Conical + internal hexagonal and screw-in implant abutment connection interface is more successful than other systems in cases with increased vertical dimension, particularly in the posterior region.

<bold>
  <sc>Figures 1 and 2.</sc>
</bold>
Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Finite element models of 5 implant systems: system-1, external hexagonal implant-abutment connection; system-2, conical + internal hexagonal implant-abutment connection; system-3, internal hexagonal implant-abutment connection; system-4, tube-in-tube implant-abutment connection; system-5, morse taper integrated screwed-in implant-abutment connection. Figure 2. The direction of the forces applied.


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 3–5.</sc>
</bold>
Figures 3–5.

Figure 3. Stress distribution in external hexagonal connection (MPa). Figure 4. Stress distribution in monical + internal hexagonal connection (MPa). Figure 5. Stress distribution in internal hexagonal connection (MPa).


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 6 and 7.</sc>
</bold>
Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6. Stress distribution in tube-in-tube connection (MPa). Figure 7. Stress distribution in morse taper integrated screwed-in connection (MPa).


<bold>
  <sc>Figure 8.</sc>
</bold>
Figure 8.

Maximum stress values in all components of the system (MPa).


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: dralabalik@hotmail.com
  • Download PDF