Journal of Technologic Dentistry (대한치과기공학회지)

Korean Academy of Dental Technology (대한치과기공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Stress distribution in implant abutment components made of titanium alloy, zirconia, and polyetheretherketone: a comparative study using finite element analysis

티타늄 합금, 지르코니아, 폴리에테르에테르케톤 지대주 재질에 따른 임플란트 구성요소의 응력분포: 유한 요소 분석을 통한 비교 연구

  • Sung-Min Kim (Department of Dental Laboratory Technology, Jinju Health College)
  • 김성민 (진주보건대학교 치기공과)
  • Received : 2024.05.20
  • Accepted : 2024.06.16
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the stress distribution and deformation in implant abutments made from titanium (Ti-6Al-4V), zirconia, and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), including their screws and fixtures, under various loading conditions using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods: Three-dimensional models of the mandible with implant abutments were created using Siemens NX software (NX10.0.0.24, Siemens). FEA was conducted using Abaqus to simulate occlusal loads and assess stress distribution and deformation. Material properties such as Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio were assigned to each component based on literature and experimental data. Results: The FEA results revealed distinct stress distribution patterns among the materials. Titanium alloy abutments exhibited the highest stress resistance and the most uniform stress distribution, making them highly suitable for long-term stability. Zirconia abutments showed strong mechanical properties with higher stress concentration, indicating potential vulnerability to fracture despite their aesthetic advantages. PEEK abutments demonstrated the least stress resistance and higher deformation compared to other abutment materials, but offered superior shock absorption, though they posed a higher risk of mechanical failure under high load conditions. Conclusion: The study emphasizes the importance of selecting appropriate materials for dental implants. Titanium offers durability and uniform stress distribution, making it highly suitable for long-term stability. Zirconia provides aesthetic benefits but has a higher risk of fracture compared to titanium. PEEK excels in shock absorption but has a higher risk of mechanical failure compared to both titanium and zirconia. These insights can guide improved implant designs and material choices for various clinical needs.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim WJ, Cho YD, Ku Y, Ryoo HM. The worldwide patent landscape of dental implant technology. Biomater Res. 2022;26:59. 
  2. Bharate V, Kumar Y, Koli D, Pruthi G, Jain V. Effect of different abutment materials (zirconia or titanium) on the crestal bone height in 1 year. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10:372-374. 
  3. Kim NS, Lee MK, Hong MH. A Finite element stress analysis of abutment screw according to the implant abutment material. J Korean Acad Dent Technol. 2016;38:1-6. 
  4. Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Hammerle CH, Mattiola A. Single-tooth implant reconstructions: esthetic factors influencing the decision between titanium and zirconia abutments in anterior regions. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2007;2:296-310. 
  5. Schmalz G, Garhammer P. Biological interactions of dental cast alloys with oral tissues. Dent Mater. 2002;18:396-406. 
  6. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007;28:4845-4869. 
  7. Harinee A, Rajesh C, Anilkumar S, Raj I, Sandhya MR. Comparison of mechanical properties of the implant materials- titanium, zirconium and PEEK using three dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Adv Res. 2023;11:656-663. 
  8. Gowda EM, Iyer SR, Verma K, Murali Mohan S. Evaluation of PEEK composite dental implants: a comparison of two different loading protocols. J Dent Res Rep. 2018;1:1-5. 
  9. Bayata F, Yildiz C. The mechanical behaviors of various dental implant materials under fatigue. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2018:5047319. 
  10. Eom TG, Suh S, Jeon GR, Shin JW, Jeong CM. Effect of tightening torque on abutment-fixture joint stability using 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2009;47:125-135. 
  11. Choi SM, Choi H, Lee DH, Hong MH. Comparative finite element analysis of mandibular posterior single zirconia and titanium implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021;13:396-407. 
  12. Chand YB, Mahendra J, Jigeesh N, Mahendra L, Shivasubramanian L, Perika SB. Comparison of stress distribution and deformation of four prosthetic materials in full-mouth rehabilitation with implants: a three-dimensional finite element study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21:1210-1217. 
  13. Hong MH. Effects of titanium and PEEK abutments on implant-supported dental prosthesis and stress distribution of surrounding bones: three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Tech Dent. 2022;44:67-75. 
  14. Kohal RJ, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Tripodakis A, Strub JR. Three-dimensional computerized stress analysis of commercially pure titanium and yttrium-partially stabilized zirconia implants. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15:189-194. 
  15. Lin CP, Shyu YT, Wu YL, Tsai MH, Chen HS, Wu AY. Effects of marginal bone loss progression on stress distribution in different implant-abutment connections and abutment materials: a 3D finite element analysis study. Materials. 2022;15:5866. 
  16. Butz F, Heydecke G, Okutan M, Strub JR. Survival rate, fracture strength and failure mode of ceramic implant abutments after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32:838-843. 
  17. Denry IL, Holloway JA. Microstructural and crystallographic surface changes after grinding zirconia-based dental ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;76:440-448. 
  18. Sundh A, Molin M, Sjogren G. Fracture resistance of yttrium oxide partially-stabilized zirconia all-ceramic bridges after veneering and mechanical fatigue testing. Dent Mater. 2005;21:476-482. 
  19. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:519-526. 
  20. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:290-298.