Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) implants have been proposed as an alternative to titanium (Ti) implants because of their aesthetic and mechanical properties. This in silico study compared the elastic strain distribution of Y-TZP and Ti dental implants under axial and oblique loads using a previously validated finite element model. Two finite element models, with identical geometry, boundary conditions, loading configuration, prosthetic crown, abutment, and screws, and differing only in implant body material, were constructed for biomechanical evaluation. Each model was subjected to a 300 N load applied axially and at 30°, and equivalent, maximum principal, and minimum principal elastic strains were evaluated in the peri-implant bone, implant body, and abutment screw. Under axial loading, peri-implant bone strain patterns were similar between Ti and Y-TZP, with peak equivalent elastic strain values of approximately 5 millistrain. Under oblique loading, the Y-TZP implant showed lower equivalent elastic strain in the implant body than Ti, with values of approximately 1.3 and 3.0 millistrain, respectively. The abutment screw also showed smaller regions of elevated strain in the Y-TZP model. Within the assumptions of this static linear elastic model, implant material stiffness influenced component-level elastic strain distribution, particularly under oblique loading. These numerical findings should not be interpreted as evidence of improved clinical performance, reduced bone resorption, or superior long-term stability. Further studies should include cyclic loading, fracture and fatigue analyses, interface stability, and patient-specific bone conditions.
MonteroJ. A review of the major prosthetic factors influencing the prognosis of implant prosthodontics. J Clin Med2021; 10: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040816
2.
OudVVan Der VekenDVan KerckhovenK, et al. The effect of bone quality and bone mineral density on dental implant failures – a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res2019; 30: 311. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.267_13509
3.
BourauelCAitlahrachMHeinemannF, et al. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implants: extensive study of commercial implants. Biomed Tech Eng2012; 57: 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2011-0047
4.
MatsushitaYKitohMMizutaK, et al. Two-dimensional fem analysis of hydroxyapatite implants: diameter effects on stress distribution. J Oral Implantol1990; 16: 6–11.
5.
Zupancic CepicLFrankMReisingerA, et al. Biomechanical finite element analysis of short-implant-supported, 3-unit, fixed cad/cam prostheses in the posterior mandible. Int J Implant Dent2022; 8: 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00404-8
6.
GengJPTanKBLiuGR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent2001; 85: 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1067/MPR.2001.115251
7.
PirmoradianMNaeeniHAFirouzbakhtM, et al. Finite element analysis and experimental evaluation on stress distribution and sensitivity of dental implants to assess optimum length and thread pitch. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2020; 187: 105258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.105258
8.
QiuPCaoRLiZ, et al. A comprehensive biomechanical evaluation of length and diameter of dental implants using finite element analyses: A systematic review. Heliyon2024; 10: e26876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26876
9.
ZhangWKeJQianG, et al. Fabrication of highly bioactive zirconia ceramics via grain-boundary activation for dental implants. J Am Ceram Soc2022; 105: 5069–5081. https://doi.org/10.1111/JACE.18476
10.
HeQQinYZhanX, et al. Physicochemical and biological properties of y-tzp ceramics modified by infiltration with different bioactive glasses for dental implant. Ceram Int2023; 49: 29187–29197. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CERAMINT.2023.06.200
11.
RahimiSSharifianJaziFEsmaeilkhanianA, et al. Effect of sio2 content on y-tzp/al2o3 ceramic-nanocomposite properties as potential dental applications. Ceram Int2020; 46: 10910–10916. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CERAMINT.2020.01.105
DepprichRZipprichHOmmerbornM, et al. Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: an in vivo study. Head Face Med2008; 4: 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-4-30
14.
HoffmannOAngelovNGallezF, et al. The zirconia implant-bone interface: a preliminary histologic evaluation in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2008; 23: 691–695.
15.
AndreiotelliMWenzHJKohalRJ. Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants? A systematic literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res2009; 20Suppl 4: 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01785.x
16.
KohalRJWolkewitzMHinzeM, et al. Biomechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants: an experiment in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res2009; 20: 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01656.x
Bankoğlu GüngörMAydınCYılmazH, et al. An overview of zirconia dental implants: basic properties and clinical application of three cases. J Oral Implantol2014; 40: 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00109
de Azevedo-SilvaLJFerrairoBMPiresLA, et al. Novel 8%-TiO2-nanoparticle-reinforced dense polycrystalline bovine hydroxyapatite bioceramic. Int J Ceram Eng Sci2022; 4: 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/CES2.10127
22.
KohalRJPapavasiliouGKamposioraP, et al. Three-dimensional computerized stress analysis of commercially pure titanium and yttrium-partially stabilized zirconia implants. Int J Prosthodont2002; 15: 189–194.
23.
dos SantosCCoutinhoIAmaranteJ, et al. Mechanical properties of ceramic composites based on zro2 co-stabilized by Y2O3–CeO2 reinforced with al2o3 platelets for dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 116: 104372. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMBBM.2021.104372
24.
ChangCLChenCSYeungTC, et al. Biomechanical effect of a zirconia dental implant-crown system: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2012; 27: e49–e57.
25.
FuhLJHsuJTHuangHL, et al. Biomechanical investigation of thread designs and interface conditions of zirconia and titanium dental implants with bone: three-dimensional numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2013; 28: e64–e71. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2131
26.
CardelliPLVertucciVBalestraF, et al. Mechanical evaluation and fem analysis of stress in fixed partial dentures zirconium-ceramic. Oral Implantol2013; 6: 55–62. https://doi.org/10.11138/orl/2013.6.3.055
27.
AnamiLCLimaJMCorazzaPH, et al. Finite element analysis of the influence of geometry and design of zirconia crowns on stress distribution. J Prosthodont2015; 24: 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12175
28.
YangYZTianXHZhouYM. [Effect of zirconia abutment angulation on stress distribution in the abutment and the bone around implant: a finite element study]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue2015; 24: 447–450.
29.
LopezCAVVascoMAARualesE, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution in zirconia and titanium dental implants. J Oral Implantol2018; 44: 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00109
30.
SharanrajVRameshaCMKumarV, et al. Finite element analysis of zirconia ceramic biomaterials used in medical dental implants. Interceram - International Ceramic Review2019; 68: 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42411-019-0004-0
31.
TalmazovGVeilleuxNAbdulmajeedA, et al. Finite element analysis of a one-piece zirconia implant in anterior single tooth implant applications. PLoS One2020; 15: e0229360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229360
32.
GahlertMGudehusTEichhornS, et al. Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res2007; 18: 662–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01401.x
33.
GuvenSBeydemirKDundarS, et al. Evaluation of stress distributions in peri-implant and periodontal bone tissues in 3- and 5-unit tooth and implant-supported fixed zirconia restorations by finite elements analysis. Eur J Dent2015; 9: 329–339. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.163223
34.
HernandezBAFreitasJPCapello SousaEA. Fatigue life estimation of dental implants using a combination of the finite element method and traditional fatigue criteria. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C: J Mech Eng Sci2023; 237: 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119231186097
35.
AcharyaPHPatelVVDusejaSS, et al. Comparative evaluation of peri-implant stress distribution in implant protected occlusion and cuspally loaded occlusion on a 3 unit implant supported fixed partial denture: a 3d finite element analysis study. J Adv Prosthodont2021; 13: 79–88. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.2.79
36.
AkçaKUysalSCehreliM. Implant–tooth-supported fixed partial prostheses: correlations between in vivo occlusal bite forces and marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res2006; 17(3): 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01169.x
37.
JuodzbalysGKubiliusREidukynasV, et al. Stress distribution in bone: single-unit implant prostheses veneered with porcelain or a new composite material. Implant Dent2005; 14(2): 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000165030.59555.2c
38.
SertgözAGüvenerS. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent1996; 76(2): 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90301-7
39.
ToninBSHFuJHeY, et al. The effect of abutment material stiffness on the mechanical behavior of dental implant assemblies: a 3d finite element study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2023; 142: 105847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.105847
García-de-AlbenizNJiménez-PiquéERoaJJ, et al. A review of surface topographical modification strategies of 3y-tzp: effect in the physicochemical properties, microstructure, mechanical reliability, and biological response. J Eur Ceram Soc2023; 43(8): 2977–3004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2023.02.043
42.
MaoQSuKZhouY, et al. Voxel-based micro-finite element analysis of dental implants in a human cadaveric mandible: tissue modulus assignment and sensitivity analyses. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2019; 94: 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.03.008
43.
ParkSParkJKangI, et al. Effects of assessing the bone remodeling process in biomechanical finite element stability evaluations of dental implants. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2022; 221: 106852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106852
44.
Prados-PrivadoMMartínez-MartínezCGehrkeSA, et al. Influence of bone definition and finite element parameters in bone and dental implants stress: a literature review. Biology2020; 9(8): 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9080224
45.
WatanabeFHataYKomatsuS, et al. Finite element analysis of the influence of implant inclination, loading position, and load direction on stress distribution. Odontology2003; 91(1): 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-003-0029-7
