{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031504617055947856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007061379684953829, 'mean_word_length': 4.941935483870968, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of the implant design on peri-implant bone stress and abutment micromovement: three-dimensional finite element analysis of original computer-aided design models.

BACKGROUND
Occlusal overloading causes peri-implant bone resorption. Previous studies examined stress distribution in alveolar bone around commercial implants using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis. However, the commercial implants contained some different designs. The purpose of this study is to reveal the effect of the target design on peri-implant bone stress and abutment micromovement.


METHODS
Six 3D implant models were created for different implant-abutment joints: 1) internal joint model (IM); 2) external joint model (EM); 3) straight abutment (SA) shape; 4) tapered abutment (TA) shapes; 5) platform switching (PS) in the IM; and 6) modified TA neck design (reverse conical neck [RN]). A static load of 100 N was applied to the basal ridge surface of the abutment at a 45-degree oblique angle to the long axis of the implant. Both stress distribution in peri-implant bone and abutment micromovement in the SA and TA models were analyzed.


RESULTS
Compressive stress concentrated on labial cortical bone and tensile stress on the palatal side in the EM and on the labial side in the IM. There was no difference in maximum principal stress distribution for SA and TA models. Tensile stress concentration was not apparent on labial cortical bone in the PS model (versus IM). Maximum principal stress concentrated more on peri-implant bone in the RN than in the TA model. The TA model exhibited less abutment micromovement than the SA model.


CONCLUSION
This study reveals the effects of the design of specific components on peri-implant bone stress and abutment displacement after implant-supported single restoration in the anterior maxilla.