This study is a contribution to our understanding of the mechanical behaviour of dental implants through the use of the finite element and the photoelastic methods. Two internal connection and bone level dental implants with different design have been analysed (M-12 by Oxtein S.L., Zaragoza, Spain, and ASTRA, from Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), evaluating the stress distribution produced by axial stresses and a comparison has been established between them, as well as between the two methods used, in order to validate the adopted hypotheses and correlate the numerical modelling performed with experimental tests. To load the implant in laboratory testing, a column was placed, such that the loading point was about 9.3 mm from the upper free surface of the resin plate. This column connects the implant with the weights used to define the test load. In turn, support for both plates was achieved by two 6 mm bolts 130 mm apart and located on a parallel line with the resin (flush with the maximum level of the implant), at a depth of 90 mm. The results obtained with both methods used were similar enough. The comparison of results is fundamentally visual, but ensures that, at least in the range of forces used, both methods are similar. Therefore, the photoelastic method can be used to confirm in a real way the virtual conditions of the finite element models, with the implications in the investigation of dental implants that this entails.

(1) Background: In today's dentistry, implantology has become a therapeutic resource of choice in certain clinical situations. The design of implants has evolved in several aspects since their inception. Dental implants were initially designed with an external hex connection, although due to force transmission and security in the adjustment of the prosthesis, later implants featured an internal hex connection. This study aims to analyse the mechanical properties of two types of implants (an internal connection and an external connection) from the same manufacturer and their different prosthetic components (union screw between implant and prosthetic abutment, and the abutment itself) when subjected to different types of load. (2) Materials and methods: Intraosseous dental implants of similar shape, design and size, although different in type of connection (external vs. internal), were studied. The specifications of the UNI EN ISO 14801 test standard were used, with all determinations being carried out three times. Finally, the dimensional characterisation of the samples analysed after the dynamic load study was carried out, and the values of both study groups were compared by means of the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test to find statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). (3) Results: For the static characterisation test, we found between 610.9 N and 986.1 N for the external connection and between 1263.6 N and 1324 N for the internal connection (p = 0.011). All of the dynamic load tests were positive and there was no failure in any of the components studied. (4) Conclusions: After the analysis of the samples studied in vitro, satisfactory results were obtained, demonstrating that both connections can support considerable mechanical loads according to international standards (UNI EN ISO 14801).

Bruxism is an unconscious, involuntary and sustained motor activity that results in excessive teeth grinding or jaw clenching that could affect patients’ implants and rehabilitations. The aetiology for bruxism remains unknown, but it is known to involve multiple factors. The literature lacks studies on the possible effect of implant morphology on the resistance of the bone-implant osseointegrated interface when bruxism is present. Our objective is to assess the mechanical response of the bone-implant interface in bruxist patients whose implant prostheses are subjected to parafunctional cyclic loading over a simulated period of 10 years. A comparison was carried out between two implant types (M-12 and Astra Tech), and a pattern of bone loss was established considering both the stress state and the cortical bone surface loss as the evaluation criteria. Numerical simulation techniques based on the finite element analysis method were applied in a dynamic analysis of the received forces, together with a constitutive model of bone remodelling that alters the physical properties of the bone. The simulated cortical bone surface loss at the implant neck area was 8.6% greater in the Astra implant than in the M-12 implant. Compared to the M-12 implant, the higher sustained stress observed over time in the Astra implant, together with the greater cortical bone surface loss that occurred at its neck area, may be related to the major probability of failure of the prostheses placed over Astra implants in bruxist patients.

Biomechanical bite analysis is essential for understanding occlusal forces and their distribution, especially in the design and validation of dental prostheses. Although the finite element method (FEM) has been widely used to evaluate these forces, the existing models often lack accuracy due to simplified geometries and limited material properties. Methods: A detailed finite element model was developed using Abaqus Standard 2023 software (Dassault Systemes, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France), incorporating scanned 3D geometries of mandibular and maxillary bones. The model included cortical and cancellous bones (Young’s modulus: 5.5 GPa and 13.7 GPa, respectively) and was adjusted to simulate bite forces of 220.7 N based on experimental data. Occlusal forces were evaluated using flexible connectors that replicate molar-to-molar interactions, and the stress state was analyzed in the maxillary and mandibular bones. Results: The FEM model consisted of 1.68 million elements, with mesh sizes of 1–1.5 mm in critical areas. Bite forces on the molars were consistent with clinical trials: first molar (59.3 N), second molar (34.4 N), and third molar (16.7 N). The results showed that the maximum principal stresses in the maxillary bones did not exceed ±5 MPa, validating the robustness of the model for biomechanical predictions. Conclusion: The developed model provides an accurate and validated framework for analyzing the distribution of occlusal forces in intact dentures. This approach allows the evaluation of complex prosthetic configurations and their biomechanical impact, optimizing future designs to reduce clinical complications and improve long-term outcomes. The integration of high-resolution FEM models with clinical data establishes a solid foundation for the development of predictive tools in restorative dentistry.

The zygomatic bone, a fundamental structure in facial anatomy, is exposed to fractures in impact situations, such as traffic accidents or contact sports. The installation of zygomatic implants can also alter the distribution of forces in this region, increasing the risk of fractures. To evaluate this situation, the first step is to develop a complex anatomical model from the stomatognathic point of view so that simulations in this sense can be validated. This study uses numerical simulation using a finite-element method (FEM) to analyze the behavior of the zygomatic bone under impacts of different velocities, offering a more realistic approach than previous studies by including the mandible, cervical spine, and masticatory muscles. Methods: An FEM model was developed based on 3D scans of actual bones, and simulations were performed using Abaqus Explicit 2023 software (Dassault Systemes, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France). The impact was evaluated using a steel cylinder (200 mm length, 40 mm diameter, 2 kg weight) impacted at speeds of 5, 10, 15, and 20 km/h. Zygomatic, maxillary, and mandibular bone properties were based on dynamic stiffness parameters, and bone damage was analyzed using ductile fracture and fracture energy criteria. Results: The results show that at impact velocities of 15 and 20 km/h, the zygomatic bone suffered crush fractures, with impact forces up to 400 kg. At 10 km/h, a combination of crushing and bending was observed, while at 5 km/h, only local damage without complete fracture was detected. The maximum stresses were concentrated at the zygoma–jaw junction, with values above 100 MPa at some critical points. Conclusion: The FEM model developed offers a detailed representation of the mechanical behavior, integrating the main structures of the stomatognathic apparatus of the zygomatic bone under impact, providing valuable information to, for example, advance injury prevention and zygomatic implant design. Higher impact velocities result in severe fractures, underscoring the need for protective measures in clinical and sports settings.