This is an in silico study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical influence of different implant-abutment interfaces (external hexagon and Morse taper implants), retention systems (cement and screw retained), and restorative crowns (metal-ceramic and monolithic) using 3-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Eight 3D models were simulated for the maxillary first molar area using InVesalius, Rhinoceros, and SolidWorks and processed using Femap and NEi Nastran software. Axial and oblique forces of 200 and 100 N, respectively, were applied on the occlusal surface of the prostheses. Microstrain and von Mises stress maps were used to evaluate the deformation (cortical bone tissue) and stress (implants/fixation screws/crowns), respectively, for each model. For both loadings, Morse taper implants had lower microstrain values than the external hexagon implants. The retention system did not affect microstrain on the cortical bone tissue under both loadings. However, the cemented prosthesis displayed higher stress with the fixation screw than the external hexagon implants. No difference was observed between the metal-ceramic and zirconia monolithic crowns in terms of microstrain and stress distribution on the cortical bone, implants, or components. Morse taper implants can be considered as a good alternative for dental implant rehabilitation because they demonstrated better biomechanical behavior for the bone and fixation screw as compared to external hexagon implants. Cement-retained prosthesis increased the stress on the fixation screw of the external hexagon implants, thereby increasing the risk of screw loosening/fracture in the posterior maxillary area. The use of metal-ceramic or monolithic crowns did not affect the biomechanical behavior of the evaluated structures.

This study evaluated the stress distribution based on the canine pillar geometry in human skull, using a finite element analysis. Computed tomography of human skull was used to build a finite element model, which was composed by all bony structures of canine pillar: canine eminence, canine fossa, frontal process of maxilla, glabellum and superciliary arch. A support on the bite contact of maxillary canine tooth and a resultant force of the masticatory muscles was applied in the simulation. Equivalent Von-mises and maximum principal stresses were analyzed along the structures that compose the canine pillar geometry. Von-mises stress presented high stress concentrated at the canine fossa and frontal process of maxilla. Maximum principal stress showed compression areas at the canine fossa and part of frontal process and tensile stress at canine eminence and part of the frontal process. In conclusion, the different stress areas means different force concentrations transmitted along the canine pillar geometry during a peak canine bite.