International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Different Implant Internal Crest Module Designs on Abutment Stability and Screw Passivity: A Finite Element Analysis

Sareen Duseja, Vilas Patel, Dhaval Jivani

Keywords : Abutments, Dental implant, Finite element analysis, Implant stability, Internal connections, Screw passivity

Citation Information : Duseja S, Patel V, Jivani D. Effect of Different Implant Internal Crest Module Designs on Abutment Stability and Screw Passivity: A Finite Element Analysis. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (4):185-190.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1390

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of this finite element analysis (FEA) was to comparatively assess implant stability, abutment stability, and screw passivity in dental implants with different internal connections and guide in their selection process. Materials and methods: Three widely accessible types of internal implant-abutment connections served as the study's foundation. Lengths of 9.5 and 11 mm and diameters of 3.5 and 4.1 mm were selected with three different internal abutment attachment crest module designs. The three designs studied were: hex with a 45° bevel, octagon with a reverse 82° bevel, and trilobe with a butt joint. Young's modulus and Poison's ratio were used to allocate the various structures employed in the FEA model to their respective materials. An axial load of 35 N was applied over the abutment, and a 70 N load was applied non-axially. Moreover, a 10 N horizontal load was also applied. Overall displacement and stresses in bone, implant, and screw were calculated using Analysis of Systems (ANSYS) software. Results: It was found that on the application of 35 N vertical load, almost all the models showed similar overall displacement. The oblique load of 70 N also showed not much difference in overall displacement in all models. However, the overall stress concentration was slightly higher (125.87 MPa) in model 3 with the trilobe butt joint design. Overall implant stress is lowest (121.3 MPa) in model 2 with an octagonal design. Octagonal type of internal connection showed better screw passivity and abutment stability under axial as well as nonaxial loading. Conclusion: Abutment stability, as well as implant stability, is more with octagonal internal connection design. Moreover, inner screw stress is lowest in the octagonal design as compared to the other two designs, with the highest stress in the trilobe butt joint connection.

PDF Share
  1. Raoofi S, Khademi M, Amid R, et al. Comparison of the effect of three abutment-implant connections on stress distribution at the internal surface of dental implants: a finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2013;7(3):132–139. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2013.021
  2. Do TA, Le HS, Shen YW, et al. Risk factors related to late failure of dental implant-a systematic review of recent studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(11):3931. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17113931
  3. Thiebot N, Hamdani A, Blanchet F, et al. Implant failure rate and the prevalence of associated risk factors: a 6-year retrospective observational survey. J Oral Med Oral Surg 2022;28(2). DOI: 10.1051/mbcb/2021045
  4. Vaidya S, Khalikar A, Dange SP, et al. Complications and their management in implantology. Int J of Prosthodont and Restor Dent 2012;2(4):150–155. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1065
  5. Abdelhay N, Prasad S, Gibson MP. Failure rates associated with guided versus non-guided dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BDJ Open 2021;7(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1038/s41405-021-00086-1
  6. Binnon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implant, standard abutment and implant analog. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(2):162–178. PMID: 7575968.
  7. Ohmell L, Hirsh JM, Ericsson L, et al. Single tooth rehabilitation using osseointegration. A modified surgical and prosthodontics approach. Quintessence Int 1988;19(12):871–876. PMID: 3254544.
  8. Yadav P, Tahir M, Shetty P, et al. Implant design and stress distribution. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2016;7(2):34–39. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10012-1151
  9. Mahantshetty M, Thumati P, Ayinala M. The analysis of the stress distribution around angulated and parallel placed implants based on “all on four concept” and four implants placed parallel within the interforaminal distance in an edentulous mandible-an in vitro three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent Implant 2021;11(1):44–52. DOI: 10.4103/jdi.jdi_28_20
  10. Gupta S, Sabharwal R, Nazeer J, et al. Platform switching technique and crestal bone loss around the dental implants: a systematic review. Ann Afr Med 2019;18(1):1–6. DOI: 10.4103/aam.aam_15_18
  11. Amid R, Rasoolzadeh RA, Motlagh AM, et al. Stress and strain distribution patterns in bone around splinted standard and short implants placed at the crestal level and subcrestally using three-dimensional finite element. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2017;27(1):1–11. DOI: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2017019926
  12. Termeie D, Klokkevold PR, Caputo AA. Effect of implant diameter and ridge dimension on stress distribution in mandibular first molar sites-a photoelastic study. J Oral Implantol 2015;41(5):e165–173. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00008
  13. Pera F, Menini M, Bagnasco F, et al. Evaluation of internal and external hexagon connections in immediately loaded full-arch rehabilitations: a within-person randomized split-mouth controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021;23(4):562–567. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13029
  14. Roque WF, Peixoto CC, Silva GJ, et al. Internal vs. external hexagon implants: best match. Acta Sci Dent Sci 2019;3(12):104–107. DOI: 10.31080/ASDS.2019.03.0708
  15. Muley N, Prithviraj DR, Gupta V. Evolution of external and internal implant to abutment connection. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2012;3(3):122–129. DOI: 10.5005/JP-Journals-10012-1079
  16. Ding X, Zhu XH, Liao SH, et al. Implant-bone interface stress distribution in immediately loaded implants of different diameters: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont 2009;18(5):393–402. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00453.x
  17. Assunção WG, Gomes EA, Barão VA, et al. Stress analysis in simulation models with or without implant threads representation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(6):1040–1044. PMID: 20162107.
  18. Guan H, van Staden R, Loo YC, et al. Influence of bone and dental implant parameters on stress distribution in the mandible: a finite element study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(5): 866–876. PMID: 19865627.
  19. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4(3):211–217. PMID: 2700745.
  20. Rodriguez-Ciurana X, Vela-Nebot X, Segala-Torres M, et al. Biomechanical repercussions of bone resorption related to biologic width: a finite element analysis of three implant-abutment configurations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009;29: 479–487. PMID: 19888491.
  21. Rho JY, Ashman RB, Turner CH. Young's modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J Biomech 1993;26(2):111–119. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(93)90042-d
  22. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alternations: a review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(4):207–215. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01783.x
  23. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3(3):104–111. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x
  24. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, et al. Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15(4):413–420. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01028.x
  25. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bell M, et al. Influence of microgap location and configuration on the periimplant bone morphology in submerged implants: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(11):1141–1147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01564.x
  26. Kofron MD, Carstens M, Fu C, et al. In vitro assessment of connection strength and stability of internal implant-abutment connections. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2019;65:92–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.03.007
  27. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(1):75–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01545.x
  28. Tabata LF, Rocha EP, Barão VA, et al. Platform switching: biomechanical evaluation using three dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(3):482 491. PMID: 21691594.
  29. Levine R, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG, et al. A multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: preliminary results at six or more months of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12(2):237–242. PMID: 9109275.
  30. Akca K, Cehreli MC, Iplikçioğlu H, et al. Evaluation of the mechanical characteristics of the implant–abutment complex of a reduced-diameter morse-taper implant: a nonlinear finite element stress analysis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003;14(4):444–454. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00828.x
  31. Shetty M, D Prasad K, Shetty HG N, Jaiman R, et al. Implant abutment connection: biomechanical perspectives. NUJHS 2014;4(2):47–53.
  32. Ravishankar Y. Implant–abutment connections: a review. Andhra Pradesh State Dent J 2016;9(2):317–322.
  33. Chang HS, Chen YC, Hsieh YD, et al. Stress distribution of two commercial dental implant systems: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent Sci 2013;8(3):261–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2012.04.006
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.