The type of implant-abutment connection is one of the factors influencing the distribution of occlusal forces. This study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of the mandibular all-on-4 treatment with different implant–abutment connections. Two connection types with 30° abutments and 18-mm implant fixtures were chosen for the posterior implants of the all-on-4 assembly. For the external hexagon connection (EHC) group, the implants with 4 mm in diameter were used. For the internal hexagon connection (IHC) group, we selected implants with 4.3 mm in diameter. A vertical force of 190 N was applied to the cantilever region. The FEA results indicated that the most stressed region in the two groups was prosthetic screws, followed by multi-unit abutments (MUAs). The lowest values of von Mises stress were both observed on the bone. The peak stress value of the implant screw and implant fixture in the EHC group were 37.75% and 33.03% lower than the IHC group, respectively. For stress distribution patterns, the load force tended to be concentrated at locations where components were interconnected. The EHC and IHC are clinically durable under the tested loading conditions, but the prosthetic screws and MUAs can be the weak point on the posterior implant within the mandibular all-on-four assembly. The peak stress values of implant screw and implant fixture in the EHC groups were lower than the IHC group.

Peri-implantitis is a common implant-supported prosthesis complication, and marginal bone loss affects the stress distribution in implant systems. This three-dimensional finite element analysis study investigated how bone loss affects the implant assembly; in particular, models including two implant systems with different connection systems (external or internal hexagon), abutment materials (titanium or zirconia), and bone loss levels (0, 1.5, 3, or 5 mm) were created. We observed that the maximum von Mises stress distinctly increased in the groups with bone loss over 1.5 mm compared to the group without bone loss, regardless of the connection system or abutment material used. Moreover, the screw stress patterns with bone loss progression were determined more by the connection systems than by the abutment materials, and the magnitude of the stress on the fixture was affected by the connection systems with a similar pattern. The highest stress on the screw with the external hexagon connection system increased over 25% when bone loss increased from 3 to 5 mm, exceeding the yield strength of the titanium alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) when 5 mm bone loss exists; clinically, this situation may result in screw loosening or fracture. The highest stress on the fixture, exceeding the yield strength of pure titanium, was noted with the internal hexagon connection system and 1.5 mm bone loss. Titanium and zirconia abutments—both of which are clinically durable—presented similar screw and fixture stress patterns. Therefore, clinicians should pay more attention to maintaining the peri-implant bone to achieve the long-term stability of the implant-supported prosthesis.

The use of aftermarket computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) prosthesis components in dental implants has become popular. This study aimed to (1) compare the accuracy of aftermarket CAD/CAM screws with that of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) abutment screws and (2) examine the biomechanical effects of different abutment screws used with zirconia abutment in an implant fixture by using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Significantly different measurements were obtained for the aftermarket CAD/CAM and OEM screws. The FEA results indicated that under the same loading condition, the maximum stress of the aftermarket CAD/CAM screws was 15.9% higher than that of the OEM screws. Moreover, the maximum stress position occurred in a wide section of the OEM screws but in the narrowest section of the aftermarket screws. The stress of the OEM zirconia abutment was 14.9% higher when using the aftermarket screws than when using the OEM screws. The effect of the manufacturing differences between aftermarket and OEM screws on the clinical effect of aftermarket screws is unpredictable. Therefore, aftermarket screws should be cautiously used clinically.

In finite element (FE) simulations, the peak bone stresses were higher when loading with a cantilever extension (CE) than when loading without a CE by 33–49% in the cortical bone. In the in vitro experiments, the highest values of principal strain were all within the range of the minimum principal strain, and those peak bone strains were 40–58% greater when loading with a CE than when loading without a CE (p < 0.001). This study investigated how varying the implanted position and angulation of anterior implants in the All-on-Four treatment influenced the biomechanical environment in the alveolar bone around the dental implants. Ten numerical simulations of FE models and three in vitro samples of All-on-Four treatment of dental implants were created to investigate the effects of altering the implanted position and angulation type of anterior implants. A single load of 100 N was applied in the molar region in the presence or absence of a CE of the denture. The 3D FE simulations analyzed the von-Mises stresses in the surrounding cortical bone and trabecular bone. For the in vitro tests, the principal bone strains were recorded by rosette strain gauges and statistically evaluated using the Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis test. Loading in the presence of a CE of the denture induced the highest bone stress and strain, which were 53–97% greater in the FE simulation and 68–140% in the in vitro experiments (p < 0.008) than when loading without a CE. The bone stresses in the FE models of various implanted positions and angulation types of anterior implants were similar to those in the model of a typical All-on-Four treatment. In vitro tests revealed that the bone strains were significantly higher in the samples with various angulation types of anterior implants (p < 0.008). In the All-on-Four treatment of dental implants, the bone stress and strain were higher when the load was applied to the CE of dentures. Altering the position or angulation of the anterior dental implant in the All-on-Four treatment has no benefit in relieving the stress and strain of the bone around the dental implant.