Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1800841
Original Article

Biomechanical Evaluation of Stress Distribution in a Natural Tooth Adjacent to a Dental Implant Using Finite Element Modeling

Kunyawan Thaungwilai
1   Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Yanee Tantilertanant
2   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Punyavud Tomeboon
1   Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Weerachai Singhatanadgit 
3   Faculty of Dentistry and Research Unit in Mineralized Tissue Reconstruction, Thammasat University (Rangsit Campus), Pathumthani, Thailand
,
Pairod Singhatanadgid 
1   Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations
Funding The first author was financially supported by The 100th Anniversary Chulalongkorn University Fund for Doctoral Scholarship.
› Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Emerging evidence suggests an increased incidence of mechanical complications in natural teeth, particularly maxillary premolars, adjacent to dental implants. This study aimed to investigate and compare the maximum von Mises stress induced in a natural tooth adjacent to either a natural tooth or a dental implant under different occlusal loading and interproximal space conditions.

Materials and Methods Three-dimensional finite element models of maxillary first and second premolars were generated for both control (two natural teeth) and experimental (first premolar dental implant and natural second premolar) groups to analyze stress levels and distributions. Occlusal forces were applied to the second premolar, and the resulting maximum von Mises stress was compared between groups. The influence of dental implant presence, interproximal space, and occlusal load contact position and direction on the stress level and distribution in the loaded tooth was investigated.

Results Compared with the control group, the experimental group exhibited higher stress levels in the natural second premolar under occlusal forces, although the stress distribution remained similar. The presence of interproximal spaces, either between natural teeth or between a tooth and an implant, exacerbated stress in the loaded teeth due to reduced proximal contact area and increased stress concentration. Additionally, the position and direction of occlusal force contact differentially affected the stress level, although not the stress distribution, within the experimental tooth group.

Conclusion Dental implants increase stress on adjacent natural teeth, particularly when interproximal space exists. Occlusal force direction and position influence stress in loaded natural teeth, whether adjacent to other natural teeth or implants. The results underscore the critical importance of comprehensive patient evaluation, meticulous treatment planning, and consistent maintenance in dental implant restorations to mitigate potential complications affecting adjacent natural teeth.

Keywords

adjacent natural tooth - dental implants - finite element analysis - stress distribution - tooth displacement


Publication History

Article published online:
20 January 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hong DGK, Oh JH. Recent advances in dental implants. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 39 (01) 33
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Rupp F, Liang L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Scheideler L, Hüttig F. Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (01) 40-57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sadowsky SJ, Brunski JB. Are teeth superior to implants? A mapping review. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 126 (02) 181-187
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rosen E, Beitlitum I, Tamse A, Taschieri S, Tsesis I. Implant-associated vertical root fracture in adjacent endodontically treated teeth: a case series and systematic review. J Endod 2016; 42 (06) 948-952
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rosen E, Goldberger T, Tamse A. et al. Implant-associated cracked teeth: case series. Evid-Based Endod 2017; 2 (01) 6
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rosen E, Volmark Y, Beitlitum I, Nissan J, Nemcovsky CE, Tsesis I. Dental implant placement is a possible risk factor for the development of multiple cracks in non-endodontically treated teeth. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 8527
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Duqum I, Barker S, Marshall E, Wang R, Preisser JS, Khan A. The effect of single tooth implant restorations on the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent teeth: a chart review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20 (04) 479-482
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Han HS, Kim PJ, Kim KT, Kim S, Ku Y, Cho YD. Dental implant proximity to adjacent teeth: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2022; 24 (06) 733-739
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kırmalı Ö, Türker N, Akar T, Yılmaz B. Finite element analysis of stress distribution in autotransplanted molars. J Dent 2022; 119: 104082
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Luo X, Rong Q, Luan Q, Yu X. Effect of partial restorative treatment on stress distributions in non-carious cervical lesions: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health 2022; 22 (01) 607
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Valera-Jiménez JF, Burgueño-Barris G, Gómez-González S, López-López J, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Fernández-Aguado E. Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants. Dent Mater 2020; 36 (07) 927-935
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Gavranović-Glamoč A, Jakupović S, Cerjaković E. et al. Biomechanical analysis of mandibular premolar restored with different custom post core. Eur J Gen Dent 2024; 13 (01) 41-50
    Thieme ConnectSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Thaungwilai K, Tantilertanant Y, Singhatanadgit W, Singhatanadgid P. Finite element analysis of the mechanical performance of non-restorable crownless primary molars restored with intracoronal core-supported crowns: a proposed treatment alternative to extraction for severe early childhood caries. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (05) 1872
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Demachkia AM, Sichi LGB, Rodrigues JVM. et al. Implant-supported restoration with straight and angled hybrid abutments: digital image correlation and 3d-finite element analysis. Eur J Gen Dent 2022; 11 (01) 23-31
    Thieme ConnectSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Darwich A, Aljareh A, Aladel O, Szávai S, Nazha H. Biomechanical assessment of the influence of inlay/onlay design and material on stress distribution in nonvital molars. Eur J Gen Dent 2021; 10 (03) 158-169
    Thieme ConnectSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Morakul S, Hiran-us S, Singhatanadgid P. Finite element analysis of the mechanical behaviors of endodontic nickel–titanium rotary files: a review. Eng J (NY) 2023; 27: 29-49
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Zhang Y, Ni X, Pan C. Finite element simulation and optimization of mechanical performance of the magnesium-alloy biliary stent. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 2022; 38 (05) e3592
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Praveen Kumar G, Louis Commillus A, Cui F. A finite element simulation method to evaluate the crimpability of curved stents. Med Eng Phys 2019; 74: 162-165
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Aghili SA, Hassani K, Nikkhoo M. A finite element study of fatigue load effects on total hip joint prosthesis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2021; 24 (14) 1545-1551
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Falcinelli C, Valente F, Vasta M, Traini T. Finite element analysis in implant dentistry: state of the art and future directions. Dent Mater 2023; 39 (06) 539-556
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Mohammed Ibrahim M, Thulasingam C, Nasser KS, Balaji V, Rajakumar M, Rupkumar P. Evaluation of design parameters of dental implant shape, diameter and length on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011; 11 (03) 165-171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Bramanti E. et al. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Bayata F, Yildiz C. The effects of design parameters on mechanical failure of Ti-6Al-4V implants using finite element analysis. Eng Fail Anal 2020; 110: 104445
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Gačnik F, Ren Z, Hren NI. Modified bone density-dependent orthotropic material model of human mandibular bone. Med Eng Phys 2014; 36 (12) 1684-1692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Loading of bone surrounding implants through three-unit fixed partial denture fixation: a finite-element analysis based on in vitro and in vivo strain measurements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (03) 345-350
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Tsouknidas A, Giannopoulos D, Savvakis S. et al. The influence of bone quality on the biomechanical behavior of a tooth-implant fixed partial denture: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31 (06) e143-e154
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Wang L, Fu ZH, Hu ZH, Li M, Qiu LH, Gao Z. Biomechanical behaviour of implant prostheses and adjacent teeth according to bone quality: a finite element analysis. Eur J Oral Sci 2022; 130 (03) e12863
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Lencioni KA, Noritomi PY, Macedo AP, Ribeiro RF, Pereira AR. Influence of different implants on the biomechanical behavior of a tooth-implant fixed partial dentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2020; 46 (01) 27-34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Yang Y, Liu Y, Yuan X. et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution on short implants with different bone conditions and osseointegration rates. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23 (01) 220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Li H, Zhou ZR. Wear behaviour of human teeth in dry and artificial saliva conditions. Wear 2001; 249 (10) 980-984
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Pang NS, Suh CS, Kim KD, Park W, Jung BY. Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent natural teeth and its associated factors: a 7-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (12) 1501-1508
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Yen JY, Kang L, Chou IC, Lai YL, Lee SY. Risk assessment of interproximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent teeth: a retrospective radiographic study. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 127 (01) 86-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Gohil KS, Talim ST, Singh I. Proximal contacts in posterior teeth and factors influencing interproximal caries. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 30 (03) 295-302
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Tong H, Kwon D, Shi J, Sakai N, Enciso R, Sameshima GT. Mesiodistal angulation and faciolingual inclination of each whole tooth in 3-dimensional space in patients with near-normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141 (05) 604-617
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Warreth A, Doody K, Al-Mohsen M, Morcos O, Al-Mohsen M, Ibieyou N. Fundamentals of occlusion and restorative dentistry. Part II: occlusal contacts, interferences and occlusal considerations in implant patients. J Ir Dent Assoc 2015; 61 (05) 252-259
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Borcić J, Antonić R, Urek MM. et al. 3-D stress analysis in first maxillary premolar. Coll Antropol 2007; 31 (04) 1025-1029
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Oladapo BI, Abolfazl Zahedi S, Vahidnia F, Ikumapayi OM, Farooq MU. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of a porcelain crowned tooth. Beni Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 2018; 7 (04) 461-464
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Liu S, Liu Y, Xu J, Rong Q, Pan S. Influence of occlusal contact and cusp inclination on the biomechanical character of a maxillary premolar: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (05) 1238-1245
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Hwang S, Choi YJ, Jung S, Kim S, Chung CJ, Kim KH. Posterior dental compensation and occlusal function in adults with different sagittal skeletal malocclusions. Korean J Orthod 2020; 50 (02) 98-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Hibbeler RC. Mechanics of Materials. 10th ed. England: Pearson; 2018
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 41 Dill EH. The Finite Element Method for Mechanics of Solids with ANSYS Applications. Florida: CRC Press; 2011
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Callister WD, Rethwisch DG. Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction. New Jersey: Wiley; 2020
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 Sashi V, Leoney A, Port Louis LR. Proprioception and osseoperception in prosthodontics – a review. J Acad Dental Educ 2023; 9 (01) 24-27
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Li N, Li Y, Gao Y, Jiang L. Biomechanical assessment of tilted mandibular second molars with full-crown adjacent to implant-supported restoration: 3D finite element analysis. Int J Gen Med 2022; 15: 3459-3470
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Dai W, Lu X. The influence of contact area between implant and its adjacent teeth on finite element analysis. Vib proced 2019; 22: 182-187
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Chaichanasiri E, Nanakorn P, Tharanon W, Vander Sloten J. A finite element study of the effect of contact forces between an implant-retained crown and its adjacent teeth on bone stresses. J Mech 2011; 25 (04) 441-450
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Sarrafpour B, Rungsiyakull C, Swain M, Li Q, Zoellner H. Finite element analysis suggests functional bone strain accounts for continuous post-eruptive emergence of teeth. Arch Oral Biol 2012; 57 (08) 1070-1078
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 O'Brien WJ. Dental Materials and Their Selection. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company; 1997
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 49 Fu G, Deng F, Wang L, Ren A. The three-dimension finite element analysis of stress in posterior tooth residual root restored with postcore crown. Dent Traumatol 2010; 26 (01) 64-69
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Ban S. Classification and properties of dental zirconia as implant fixtures and superstructures. Materials (Basel) 2021; 14 (17) 4879
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Singh SV, Gupta S, Sharma D, Pandit N, Nangom A, Satija H. Stress distribution of posts on the endodontically treated teeth with and without bone height augmentation: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Conserv Dent 2015; 18 (03) 196-199
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Cho SY, Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR. Three-dimensional finite element analysis on stress distribution of internal implant-abutment engagement features. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (02) 319-327
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Ding X, Li J, Zhang X, Yan X. Effects of 3 different residual root treatments after post-and-core restoration: an in vitro fracture resistance experiment and finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (04) 485.e1-485.e10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar