The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Influence of Occlusal Stress on Implant Abutment Junction and Implant Bone Interface: A Finite Element Analysis Study

Arun Kharavela Mohanty, Thomas Varghese, Rama Kanta Mahapatro, Paul Kariyatty

Keywords : Finite element analysis, Implant abutment, Occlusal stress, Screw retained

Citation Information : Mohanty AK, Varghese T, Mahapatro RK, Kariyatty P. Influence of Occlusal Stress on Implant Abutment Junction and Implant Bone Interface: A Finite Element Analysis Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (12):1190-1194.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3452

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2023

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


Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the occlusal stress on the implant–abutment junction and implant–bone interface of a long-span implant-supported prosthesis made of two different prosthetic materials. Materials and methods: A computerized tomography of the mandible was used to get the finite element model of the bone. The comparative groups were made as follows: S1 and S2 – 3.7 × 11 mm (44 region) and 4.5 × 11 mm (47 region), S1A and S2A – screw-retained porcelain-fused-to-metal prosthesis, S1B and S2B – cement-retained porcelain-fused-to-metal prosthesis, S1C and S2C – screw-retained zirconia prosthesis, and S1D – cement-retained zirconia prosthesis. Maximum stress generated on the implant–abutment interface of all the prostheses under vertical and oblique load was assessed. Results: For all the comparative groups, maximum level of stress was generated at the cervical level of the implant–bone interface in comparison to the apical and middle-third level under both vertical and oblique load. No statistically significant difference between zirconia and porcelain-fused-to-metal prosthesis was seen at the implant–abutment interface and the cervical third of the implant–bone interface. A significant difference was found between all screw-retained and cement-retained groups. Conclusion: The present study concluded that the short implants in combination with standard-length implants using either porcelain-fused-to-metal or zirconia as prosthetic material in the form of long-span implant-supported prosthesis can be a viable treatment option in the posterior mandible. Clinical significance: The accuracy of the diagnosis, examination, and knowledge of the site where the implant must be inserted, and the choice of superstructure is important for the stability and lifespan of the implant prosthesis.

PDF Share
  1. Charyeva OO, Altynbekov KD, Nysanova BZ. Kennedy classification and treatment options: A study of partially edentulous patients being treated in a specialized prosthetic clinic. J Prosthodont 2012;21(3):177–180. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00809.x.
  2. Kapur KK, Garrett NR, Hamada MO, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part III: Comparisons of patient satisfaction. J Prosthtet Dent 1999;82(4): 416–427. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70028-4.
  3. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The edentulous predicament. I: A prospective study of the effectiveness of implant supported fixed prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(1):59–65. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0031.
  4. Karl M, Graef F, Taylor TD, et al. In vitro effect of load cycling on metal-ceramic cement and screw-retained implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97(3):137–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.01.001.
  5. Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: Clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater 2011;27(1):83–96. DOI: 10.1016/
  6. Weber H-P, Sukotjo C. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(Suppl):140–172. PMID: 18437795.
  7. Modi R, Mittal R, Kohli S, et al. Screw versus cement retained prosthesis: A review. Int J Adv Health Sci 2014;1(6):26–32.
  8. Cho S-C, Small P-N, Elian N, et al. Screw loosening for standard and wide diameter implants in partially edentulous cases: 3- to 7-year longitudinal data. Implant Dent 2004;13(3):245–250. DOI: 10.1097/
  9. Raigrodski AJ, Hillstead MB, Meng GK, et al. Survival and complications of zirconia based fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107(3):170–177. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60051-1.
  10. Barão VA, Delben JA, Lima J, et al. Comparison of different designs of implant-retained overdentures and fixed full-arch implant-supported prosthesis on stress distribution in edentulous mandible – A computed tomography-based three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech 2013;46(7):1312–1320. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.02.008.
  11. Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007;35(11):819–826. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.008.
  12. Lops D, Bressan E, Pisoni G, et al. Short implants in partially edentulous maxillae and mandibles: A 10 to 20 years retrospective evaluation. Int J Dent 2012;351793:1–8. DOI: 10.1155/2012/351793.
  13. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20(1):1–25. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(98)00010-6.
  14. Rismanchian M, Shafiei S, Nourbakhshian F, et al. Flexural strengths of implant-supported zirconia-based bridges in posterior regions. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6(5):346–350. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.346.
  15. Morneburg TR, Proschel PA. Measurements of masticatory forces and implant loads: A methodologic clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15(1):20–27. PMID: 11887595.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.