Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Abstract
Background: Finite element analysis (FEA) is widely used to examine stress and deformation in dental restorations. However, a numerical interpretation is most convincing when the underlying geometry, boundary conditions, mesh, contact definitions, and solver settings can be traced clearly. This study compares two ANSYS configurations of an implant-supported hybrid ceramic crown and examines whether the observed numerical differences can be connected to documented model features.
Methods: Two three-dimensional static-structural configurations, designated Configuration A (nominal 120) and Configuration B (nominal 160), were analyzed under vertical loads of 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, and 1400 N. Maximum principal stress, maximum principal elastic strain, equivalent (von Mises) stress, and total deformation were obtained from the ANSYS output tables. Before the numerical responses were compared, the available geometry summaries, body volumes, node and element counts, contacts, loading history, result scoping, and solver settings were checked for consistency. B/A ratios and ordinary least-squares load-response fits were then used as descriptive measures; no inferential hypothesis testing was performed.
Results: The reviewed model-summary fields were the same in both configurations, including an overall model volume of 877.68 mm³, a cement-body volume of 8.1156 mm³, 729,292 nodes, 448,331 elements, three active bonded contacts, and Large Deflection set to Off. Configuration A showed an almost proportional response across the full loading range. Configuration B followed a similar pattern up to 800 N, but the maximum principal stress then rose from 309.89 MPa at 800 N to 1319.1 MPa at 1000 N, 7919.3 MPa at 1200 N, and 12460 MPa at 1400 N. Equivalent stress reached 12835 and 13347 MPa at 1200 and 1400 N, respectively, whereas total deformation remained close to proportional and reached 0.17829 mm at 1400 N. This upper-load departure is compatible with a localized and/or numerically sensitive response requiring verification, rather than with a demonstrated failure mechanism.
Conclusions: The two configurations support a focused assessment of load-response departure and numerical traceability. Because the reviewed geometry and mesh fields are indistinguishable between them, the upper-load change cannot be attributed to the nominal labels alone. The main contribution of this analysis is to quantify the departure from the lower-load pattern and to show why extreme FEA maxima should not be given a causal interpretation unless the underlying model difference can be demonstrated independently.
Keywords:
finite element analysis, dental implant, hybrid ceramic crown, numerical verification, model traceability, stress analysis, computational reproducibility
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME V&V 40-2018: Assessing Credibility of Computational Modeling through Verification and Validation: Application to Medical Devices. New York: ASME; 2018.
Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(6):585-598. doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.115251.
Falcinelli C, Valente F, Vasta M, Traini T. Finite element analysis in implant dentistry: state of the art and future directions. Dent Mater. 2023;39(6):539-556. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2023.04.002.
Reddy MS, Sundram R, Abdemagyd HAE. Application of finite element model in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2019;11(Suppl 2):S85-S91. doi:10.4103/JPBS.JPBS_296_18.
Chang Y, Tambe AA, Maeda Y, Wada M, Gonda T. Finite element analysis of dental implants with validation: to what extent can we expect the model to predict biological phenomena? A literature review and proposal for classification of a validation process. Int J Implant Dent. 2018;4(1):7. doi:10.1186/s40729-018-0119-5.
Henninger HB, Reese SP, Anderson AE, Weiss JA. Validation of computational models in biomechanics. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010;224(7):801-812. doi:10.1243/09544119JEIM649.
Wakabayashi N, Ona M, Suzuki T, Igarashi Y. Nonlinear finite element analyses: advances and challenges in dental applications. J Dent. 2008;36(7):463-471. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.010.
Murakami N, Wakabayashi N. Finite element contact analysis as a critical technique in dental biomechanics: a review. J Prosthodont Res. 2014;58(2):92-101. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2014.03.001.
Celik HK, Koc S, Kustarci A, Rennie A. A literature review on the linear elastic material properties assigned in finite element analyses in dental research. Mater Today Commun. 2022;30:103087. doi:10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.103087.
Prados-Privado M, Martínez-Martínez C, Gehrke SA, Prados-Frutos JC. Influence of bone definition and finite element parameters in bone and dental implants stress: a literature review. Biology (Basel). 2020;9(8):224. doi:10.3390/biology9080224.
Rohr N, Coldea A, Zitzmann NU, Fischer J. Loading capacity of zirconia implant supported hybrid ceramic crowns. Dent Mater. 2015;31(12):e279-e288. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.012.
Rohr N, Märtin S, Fischer J. Correlations between fracture load of zirconia implant supported single crowns and mechanical properties of restorative material and cement. Dent Mater J. 2018;37(2):222-228. doi:10.4012/dmj.2017-111.
Campos RE, Soares PV, Versluis A, de O Júnior OB, Ambrosano GMB, Nunes IF. Crown fracture: failure load, stress distribution, and fractographic analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):447-455. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.023.
Dauti R, Lilaj B, Heimel P, Moritz A, Schedle A, Cvikl B. Influence of two different cement space settings and three different cement types on the fit of polymer-infiltrated ceramic network material crowns manufactured using a complete digital workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(6):1929-1938. doi:10.1007/s00784-019-03053-1.
Dauti R, Cvikl B, Lilaj B, Heimel P, Moritz A, Schedle A. Micro-CT evaluation of marginal and internal fit of cemented polymer infiltrated ceramic network material crowns manufactured after conventional and digital impressions. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(1):40-46. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2018.04.005.
Mounica Y, Behera S, Arunachalam S, Srikanth L, Deepthi MN, Susmita M. Influence of different cements and cement thickness on the stress distribution under occlusal surfaces of porcelain-fused-to-metal and porcelain-fused-to-zirconium crowns: a finite element analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2022;23(12):1224-1229. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3448.
Ha SR. Biomechanical three-dimensional finite element analysis of monolithic zirconia crown with different cement type. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7(6):475-483. doi:10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.475.
Ha SR, Kim SH, Lee JB, Han JS, Yeo IS, Yoo SH, Kim HK. Biomechanical three-dimensional finite element analysis of monolithic zirconia crown with different cement thickness. Ceram Int. 2016;42(13):14928-14936. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.133.
Ausiello P, Di Lauro AE, Tribst JPM, Watts DC. Stress distribution in resin-based CAD-CAM implant-supported crowns. Dent Mater. 2023;39(1):114-122. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2022.12.001.
Waldecker M, Rues S, Rammelsberg P, Bömicke W. Validation of in-vitro tests of zirconia-ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial dentures: a finite element analysis. Dent Mater. 2019;35(3):e53-e62. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.017.
