Oral implants must fulfill certain criteria arising from special demands of function, which include biocompatibility, adequate mechanical strength, optimum soft and hard tissue integration, and transmission of functional forces to bone within physiological limits. And one of the critical elements influencing the long-term uncompromise functioning of oral implants is load distribution at the implant-bone interface. Factors that affect the load transfer at the bone-implant interface include the type of loading, material properties of the implant and prosthesis, implant geometry, surface structure, quality and quantity of the surrounding bone, and nature of the bone-implant interface. To understand the biomechanical behavior of dental implants, validation of stress and strain measurements is required. The finite element analysis (FEA) has been applied to the dental implant field to predict stress distribution patterns in the implant-bone interface by comparison of various implant designs. This method offers the advantage of solving complex structural problems by dividing them into smaller and simpler interrelated sections by using mathematical techniques.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the stresses induced around the implants in bone using FEA.

A 3D FEA computer software (SOLIDWORKS 2004, DASSO SYSTEM, France) was used for the analysis of clinical simulations. Two types (external and internal) of implants of 4.1 mm diameter, 12.0 mm length were buried in 4 types of bone modeled. Vertical and oblique forces of 100N were applied on the center of the abutment, and the values of von Mises equivalent stress at the implant-bone interface were computed.

The results showed that von Mises stresses at the marginal bone were higher under oblique load than under vertical load, and the stresses were higher at the lingual marginal bone than at the buccal marginal bone under oblique load. Under vertical and oblique load, the stress in type I, II, III bone was found to be the highest at the marginal bone and the lowest at the bone around apical portions of implant. Higher stresses occurred at the top of the crestal region and lower stresses occurred near the tip of the implant with greater thickness of the cortical shell while high stresses surrounded the fixture apex for type IV. The stresses in the crestal region were higher in Model 2 than in Model 1, the stresses near the tip of the implant were higher in Model 1 than Model 2, and Model 2 showed more effective stress distribution than Model 1.