Comparative analysis of stress distribution in one-piece and two-piece implants with narrow and extra-narrow diameters: A finite element study

• Published in: PloS one 2021-02, Vol.16 (2), p.e0245800-e0245800
• Main Authors: Barbosa, Fabricia Teixeira, Zanatta, Luiz Carlos Silveira, de Souza Rendohl, Edélcio, Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biology and Life Sciences; Bonding; Cancellous bone; Cement; Comparative analysis; Computer and Information Sciences; Cortical bone; Dental prosthetics; Dentistry; Design; Diameters; Engineering and Technology; Finite element analysis; Finite element method; Grid refinement (mathematics); Implant dentures; Infrastructure; Mastication; Mechanical properties; Medicine and Health Sciences; Mesh generation; Orthodontics; Photoelasticity; Physical Sciences; Prostheses; Qualitative analysis; Rehabilitation; Research and Analysis Methods; Stress analysis; Stress concentration; Stress distribution; Three dimensional models; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245800

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress distribution on three implant models with narrow and extra-narrow diameters using the finite element method (FEA). Dental implants of extra-narrow diameter of 2.5 mm for a one-piece implant (group G1), a narrow diameter of 3.0 mm for a one-piece implant (group G2) and a narrow diameter of 3.5 mm for a two-piece implant with a Morse taper connection (group G3). A three-dimensional model was designed with cortical and cancellous bone, a crown and an implant/abutment set of each group. Axial and angled (30°) loads of 150 N was applied. The equivalent von Mises stress was used for the implants and peri-implant bone plus the Mohr-Coulomb analysis to confirm the data of the peri-implant bone. In the axial load, the maximum stress value of the cortical bone for the group G1 was 22.35% higher than that the group G2 and 321.23% than the group G3. Whereas in angled load, the groups G1 and G2 showing a similar value (# 3.5%) and a highest difference for the group G3 (391.8%). In the implant structure, the group G1 showed a value of 2188MPa, 93.6% higher than the limit. The results of this study show that the extra-narrow one-piece implant should be used with great caution, especially in areas of non-axial loads, whereas the one- and two-piece narrow-diameter implants show adequate behavior in both directions of the applied load.