China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ›› 2025, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (5): 442-449.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2025.05.003

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparative biomechanical analysis of stress distribution in cylindrical, conical implants for maxillary anterior teeth under different occlusal conditions

Guo Wendi, Wang Xing   

  1. Department of Prosthetics and Implants, The First Affiliated Hospital (Affiliated Stomatological Hospital) of Xinjiang Medical University; Stomotology Research Institution of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Urumqi 830054, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China
  • Received:2025-03-19 Revised:2025-06-23 Online:2025-09-20 Published:2025-10-10

Abstract: PURPOSE: Through three-dimensional finite element analysis, this study explores the differences in stress distribution between cylindrical and conical implants used for restoring maxillary central incisors under three occlusion types (edge-to-edge, normal and deep overbite), aiming to provide a biomechanical basis for the selection of clinical treatment plans. METHODS: Three-dimensional maxillary models of the anterior region were constructed using CBCT data from healthy volunteers. Cylindrical and conical implant prototypes were designed in SolidWorks 2024. Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed in ANSYS Workbench 2020 R2 to simulate stress distribution patterns in implants, crowns, and surrounding bone tissues under the three occlusal conditions. RESULTS: Both implant types exhibited peak von Mises stresses concentrated at the abutment neck region, with cortical bone stress localized at the cervical area. Cylindrical implants demonstrated highest stress values under edge-to-edge occlusion (implant: 583.47 MPa, crown: 248.96 MPa, cortical bone: 697.42 MPa). Deep overbite caused significant crown stress elevation (341.25 MPa). Conical implants showed optimal stress distribution under normal occlusion (implant: 313.53 MPa, crown: 90.13 MPa, cortical bone: 154.47 MPa), though their cancellous bone stress stability was superior to cylindrical implants in deep overbite. Overall, conical implants demonstrated better stress distribution capability under normal occlusion, while cylindrical implants exhibited higher crown fracture risk in deep overbite scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Implant geometry and occlusal type significantly influence biomechanical performance. The conical implant's root-analog design effectively reduces cervical bone interface stress under normal occlusion, making it preferable for aesthetic zone restorations. Cylindrical implants, despite their simpler structure, require cautious selection and occlusal adjustment in deep overbite cases. Clinical protocols should implement individualized implantation strategies based on occlusal classification to optimize long-term prognosis.

Key words: Maxillary anterior implant, Three-dimensional finite element analysis, Occlusal pattern, Stress distribution, Biomechanical performance

CLC Number: