Original Article

Influence of three different implant thread designs on stress

distribution: A three‑dimensional finite element analysis
Mansi Manish Oswal, Ulhas N. Amasi1, Manish S. Oswal, Ashish S. Bhagat
Department of Prosthodontics, D. Y. Patil Dental School, D. Y. Patil Knowledge City, Lohegoan, Charholi Budruk, Pune , Maharashtra,
1
Department of Prosthodontics, KLE V K Institute of Dental Sciences, JNMC Campus, Belgaum, Karnataka, India

Abstract Purpose: Clinical success of implant prosthodontics is dependent in part upon the type of implant
thread design. The selection of implant thread design plays an important role in the outcome of the
treatment. This study was undertaken to evaluate the pattern of stress distribution using a finite element
analysis; hence, the area which would be bearing maximum load for a given design would be arrived.
Materials and Methods: Three implants with different thread designs, namely V‑thread, buttress, and reverse
buttress thread designs were considered and dimensions were standardized. The site considered was the
mandibular molar region with cortical and trabecular bone assuming to be isotropic and homogeneous.
The implant modeling was done with the  CATIA software. Vertical loads of 100N were applied. The stresses
were calculated as Von Mises stress criterion. Results: Maximum stresses were seen at the cortical bone
and were transferred to the implant. Minimum Von Mises stresses were seen with reverse buttress thread
design at the cortical bone. The stresses were observed least at the cancellous bone and maximum at
the implant. Conclusion: Hence, within the limitations of this study the results obtained can be applied
clinically for appropriate selection of implant thread design for a predictable success of implant therapy.

Key Words: Finite element analysis, implant, thread designs

Address for correspondence:

Dr. Mansi Manish Oswal, Department of Prosthodontics, D. Y. Patil Dental School, D. Y. Patil Knowledge City, Lohegoan, Charholi Budruk, Pune, Maharashtra,
India. E‑mail: [email protected]
Received: 13th October, 2015, Accepted: 20th March, 2016

INTRODUCTION The significance of biomechanical aspects on the long

ter m success of osseointegrated implants has been
Challenges in partial or complete edentulism have been met emphasized.[2] Assuming this, determining how implant thread
by the prosthodontic rehabilitation of the patient by different designs contribute to stress distribution in the bone under an
treatment options such as removable partial dentures, fixed applied load might be relevant in adapting to suitable clinical
partial dentures, and implant‑based restorations. Implants decision. Hence, this study determines the contribution of
offer brighter prospect owing to the advantages of improved
functional efficiency, appearance, comfort, speech, and
preservation of hard and soft tissues in the oral cavity.[1]
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and
Access this article online build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations
Quick Response Code: are licensed under the identical terms.
Website:
For reprints contact: [email protected]
www.j‑ips.org

How to cite this article: Oswal MM, Amasi UN, Oswal MS, Bhagat AS.
DOI: Influence of three different implant thread designs on stress distribution:
10.4103/0972-4052.191283 A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc
2016;16:359-65.

© 2016 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 359
 Oswal, et al.: FEA study of implant thread designs

three different thread designs on stress distribution in the bone includes application of specialized software for the direct
using a three‑dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA). transformation of 3D information in image data from
computed tomography (CT) into FEA meshes[1]
Finite element method (FEM) is a numerical method of In FEA, bone is modeled as isotropic, homogeneous,
analyzing stresses and deformations in structures of any elastic, and linear material constants of Young’s Modulus
given geometry. The structure is discretized into the so‑called and Poisson’s Ratio[1] listed in Table 1. In an isotropic
“finite elements” connected through nodes.[3] The 3D FEA is model, the properties are the same in all directions. The
considered as an appropriate method for investigation of stress situation was simulated by placing an implant in the first
throughout a structure.[4] 3D FEA is an accepted technique molar region. A layer of cortical bone of 2 mm is modeled
used in the solution of engineering problems and allows the around the implant neck, and the body is modeled as being
researchers to predict the design feature optimizations.[5] embedded in the medullary bone.[7]
2. Implant to be modeled: Three implants with different
An important deciding factor for the success or failure of thread designs, namely V‑shaped, buttress, and reverse
implant‑based rehabilitation is the manner in which stresses are buttress thread designs were considered for the study. The
transferred through the implant to the surrounding bone, and implant modeling was done with the CATIA software.
this is influenced by macroscopic criteria such as the geometry The other geometric variables such as implant length,
of implant, structural metallurgy of implant, and variations diameter, and surface composition were not considered.
in thread designs and microscopic criteria such as the surface The dimensions standardized were implant length being
chemistry and microtopography.[6] 12 mm,[6] diameter 4 mm,[6] thread length 0.5 mm,[8] thread
pitch 1.2 mm,[9] thread depth 0.42 mm,[10] and thread
Initially developed in the early 1960s to the aerospace
angulations 45°[10] as depicted in Figure 1.
industry, FEA was introduced in 1976 to implant dentistry.[3]
3. Boundary conditions: The boundary conditions modeling
It is showing overwhelming capability and versatility in its
mandible were set to be fixed[11]
applications in dentistry. A thorough understanding of this
4. Bone‑implant interface: FEA models assume a state of
phenomenon might lead to a reduction in the undesirable
stresses assuring success in implantation. optimal osseointegration, meaning that cortical and
cancellous bone is assumed to be perfectly bonded to the
MATERIALS AND METHODS implant. The condition of osseointegration was simulated.
The implant was rigidly anchored in the bone model along
Three implants with different thread designs, namely V‑thread, its entire interface.[12]
buttress, and reverse buttress thread designs with similar
dimensions were considered. The site considered was the Table 1: Material properties[1,2,5]
mandibular molar region with cortical and trabecular bone Material Elastic modulus (Mpa) Poisson’s ratio
assuming to be isotropic and homogeneous. [2] ANSYUS Cortical bone 13,700 0.30
Medullary bone 1370 0.30
program was used to solve the stress analysis problems. Titanium 110,000 0.30[4]

Finite element method

A 3D quantitative analysis requires a mathematical method,
making use of a geometric model accurate both in anatomical
and physical characteristics, along with the use of a computer,
which has become an indispensable aid as far as 3D analysis are
concerned. This involves the subdivision or discretization of the
structure under consideration into a number of finite sections
or elements. These elements are connected at intersections
called nodes.[1] A complex structure or continuum so discretized
may contain many elements, which can be arranged in two or
three dimensions in layers, rather like bricks in a wall. The
methods in which the model was created and loads were applied
are as follows:
1. Detailed geometry of the bone to be modeled: A 3D FE
model was created to analyze the stress distribution in the Figure 1: Schematic diagram of modeled V‑thread, buttress, and
bone around implants caused by an applied load. This reverse buttress thread designs

360 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Oct-Dec 2016 | Vol 16 | Issue 4
 Oswal, et al.: FEA study of implant thread designs

Elements and nodes[11] Mesh density is another relevant parameter. As the surfaces are
The models were meshed with modeling software CATIA curved, increasing the mesh usually improves the results for the
and the meshing used was Hypermesh. Table 2, represents discrete model (increasing the accuracy in regions of high‑stress
the number of nodes and elements for each thread design. gradients). There should be at least 30,000–200,000 elements
The modeled implants and modeled bone were meshed. The and nodes. The size of elements must be 150–300 μm.[15]
meshed implant was placed in the meshed bone as in Figure 2.
The model used in this study implied several assumptions
Constraints and loads regarding the simulated structures. The structures in the model
The software utilized for the study was ANSYS program. were all assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic and possess
About 100N of vertical loads were applied.[8,11] linear elasticity. The mechanical properties that are the Elastic
Modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the investigated materials was
RESULTS standardized. The corresponding elastic properties (E) and
Poisson’s Ratio were determined from the literature and were
Results were presented in Von Mises stress criterion. The summarized in Table 1.
magnitude of stress distribution was represented with
a color spectrum to better visualize mesh phenomena Implant bone interface was 100% that is a state of optimal
in the models. The colors in descending order are from osseointegration; meaning that cortical and trabecular bone
red‑orange‑yellow‑green‑blue, i.e., the red depicts the highest were assumed to be perfectly bonded to the implant.
stress and blue lowest. The stress distribution was evaluated
within the cortical bone, cancellous bone, and the implant When the magnitudes of stress were compared between
body. The stresses in MPa are listed in Table 3 and depicted threaded and cylindrical implants, it was seen that maximum
in Figures 4-9. Von Mises stress was observed for the threaded implants
in D4 bone.[16] The stepped or threaded implants induced
DISCUSSION greater stresses than the cylindrical shaped implants.[17] Both
threaded and stepped designs showed an ability to dissipate
Various methods such as brittle lacquer coatings, strain gauges, interfacial stresses of bone.[18] The reason for this could
photoelasticity, holography, mathematical equations, and be that the areas of threads would form the frontline of
analysis using the FEA are used to study stress distribution in stress concentration due to sharp line angles located at the
various fields.[13] FEA is a basic research tool and is used in
dentistry as an initial step and as an aid for planning further
laboratory tests and clinical projects that will reduce the
inaccuracies.

The slices of a CT scan were assembled into a 3D model by

means of the software CATIA modeling where the implants
were also modeled according to the standardized parameters
as in Figure 1. Then, the models created were hypermeshed
with the nodes and elements as in Figure 2 and subjected to
software ANSYS[14] for loading as in Figure 4.

Table 2: Number of nodes and elements meshed for each

thread design
Thread design Nodes Elements
V‑thread 14,805 72,545
Buttress thread 15,752 74,606
Reverse buttress thread 14,835 72,740

Table 3: Von Mises stresses on vertical loading

Description Reverse buttress Buttress V‑thread
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Cortical 3.8909 5.184 4.41548
Cancellous 1.01642 0.8584 1.405
Implant 21.83 21.692 21.7508
Figure 2: Meshed implant, bone, and implant placed in the bone site

The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Oct-Dec 2016 | Vol 16 | Issue 4 361
 Oswal, et al.: FEA study of implant thread designs

Figure 4: Vertical Loading with boundaries constrained

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of dimensions standardized for V-thread,

buttress, reverse buttress thread design

Figure 6: Von Mises stress at V-thread design at the cancellous bone

may be modified by varying three geometric thread parameters

thread pitch, thread shape, and thread depth.[19]

Thread pitch is the distance measured parallel between adjacent

thread form features of an implant. Distance from center of
the thread to the center of next thread, measured parallel to
the axis of a screw is defined as thread pitch.[9] The smaller or
Figure 5: Von Mises stress at buttress thread design at cortical bone
finer the pitch, the more threads on the implant body for a given
unit length thus the greater surface area per unit length of the
sides. The success rate of cylindrical implants in D4 bone implant body if all other factors are equal. Restated, a decrease
was higher than that of the threaded implants. This was in the distance between threads will increase the number of
attributed to the fact that cylindrical implants generate less threads per unit length. The thread pitch may be used to
lateral force in spongy D4 bone than the threaded implants. help resist the forces in poorer quality bone. Therefore, if
The present study hence considers only D2 quality of bone force magnitude is increased, implant length decreased or bone
generally seen in the mandibular first molar region and only density decreased, the thread pitch may be decreased to increase
the threaded implants. the thread number and increase the functional surface area. The
functional surface area is defined as the area that actively serves
Threads are designed to maximize initial contact, enhance the to dissipate compressive loads to the implant‑bone interface.
surface area, and facilitate dissipation of loads at the bone‑implant Implant geometric body design, length, and bone density are
interface. Functional surface area per unit length of the implant related to the functional surface area.[19]

362 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Oct-Dec 2016 | Vol 16 | Issue 4
 Oswal, et al.: FEA study of implant thread designs

Thread depth is the distance between the major and minor

diameter from the tip of thread to the body. The conventional
implant provides a uniform thread depth throughout the length
of the implant. Greater the thread depth, greater the surface area
of the implant if all other factors are equal.[19] Hence, thread
pitch and thread depth were standardized and kept constant.

In an FEA study, implants with 0.5 mm pitch had a more

favorable stress distribution than those with a pitch of 1. 0 mm
or 1.5 mm and maximum effective stress gradually decreased
with decreasing thread pitch. In another FEA study, the thread
pitch of 0.18–0.3 mm was considered as optimal from a
biomechanical point of view.[10] Hence, in this study thread pitch
of 1.2 mm and thread depth of 0.42 mm were standardized[9,10]
as in Figure 3. Figure 7: Von Mises stress at reverse buttress thread design at the
cortical bone

As stated by Misch, the ideal implant diameter of 4 mm and

implant length of 12 mm for the first mandibular molar was
considered in the study.[6]

The thread shape is another characteristic of overall thread

geometry. The thread shape in dental implant designs include
square, V‑shaped, buttress, and reverse buttress thread designs.
The square or power thread provides an optimized surface area
for intrusive, compressive load transmission. Most automobile
jacks or engineering designs built to bear a load use some form
of square design.[6]

In conventional engineering applications, the V‑thread design is

called a fixture and is primarily used for fixating metal parts together.
The reverse buttress thread shape was initially designed for pull‑out
Figure 8: Von Mises stress at reverse buttress thread design at the
loads by Krupp. This screw design was used to secure cannons to implant
concrete bunkers so that the discharge forces during firing of the
cannon would not pull the screws out of the foundation.[6]

It was reported in the literature that stress (compressive)

was more evenly distributed in the case when implant thread
shape was square.[6] A study done by Mosavar demonstrated
the superiority of square thread configuration as it showed
the lowest stresses for all degrees of osseointegration in the
implant‑cortical bone transition region of the square threads.[20]
Hence, this study does not consider the square thread and
evaluates V‑thread, buttress, and reverse buttress thread designs.

Misch states three functions for threads which are to maximize

initial contact, enhance the functional surface area, and facilitate
dissipations of stress at the interfacial area.[21] Interfacial stress
analysis showed that threaded designs lower the stress near the Figure 9: Von Mises stress at reverse buttress thread design at the
valley of the thread. Moreover, two other clinical advantages cancellous bone
can be counted for threaded types which are increased stability
and stress‑induced bone formation. Threaded designs show a trabecular bone while the cylindrical straight model showed
wavy interfacial stress pattern along the implant’s surface in the one large high‑stress area.

The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Oct-Dec 2016 | Vol 16 | Issue 4 363
 Oswal, et al.: FEA study of implant thread designs

Buttress and reverse buttress thread designs dissipate the stress On vertical loading, maximum Von Mises stress was seen
transfer pathway from a single high‑stress area into numerous at Buttress thread design within the cortical bone as seen in
disconnected areas of bone near the threads tips. Reasons Figure 5 which is not favorable for the bone. At the cancellous
for it being the stress concentration yielded by geometric bone, maximum Von Mises stress was seen at V-thread design
discontinuity and stress shielding effect. The geometric seen in Figure 6 and at the implant at the reverse buttress
discontinuity of the threaded designs results in high stress at thread design transferring the stresses along the long axis of
the valley between the thread pitches. Moreover, in the valley the implant seen in Figure 8. Least Von Mises stress at bone is
between pitches, the radii were smaller than those on the tip with the reverse buttress thread and maximum at implant with
of the thread which increases nonlinear stress on the implant reverse buttress thread design as seen in Figures 7-9 which is
surface. This is known as the stress shielding effect.[22] favorable for the bone and the implant.

High stress in buttress and reverse type of thread designs is Hence, depending upon the available bone, the thread design
primarily transferred through the implant surface of the valley can be chosen. Different implant thread forms can produce
of the thread reducing the stress in the bone near the interface different stress intensities at the bone structure. Cortical bone
which may improve osseointegration and benefit the threaded and bone structure adjacent to the first thread bears most
implants with greater bone‑implant contact.[22] of the Von Mises stresses. Hence, the present study suggests
that in case of good density bone a threaded implant may be
The other parameters such as the ones mentioned thread pitch, considered. If the bone quality is poor than the thread design
depth, implant diameter, and length were all kept constant so which will promote compressive stresses and minimize Von
that they do not affect the outcome of the study. Mises stress as inferred the reverse buttress thread design can
be chosen for better results. Within the limitations of the study,
The conventional implant provides a uniform thread depth
threads at neck region were not considered and other parameters
throughout. The stress was concentrated in the cervical cortical
can be varied and has scope for future research.
bone region and the highest stress concentration occurred at the
region in jaw bone adjacent to the first thread of the implant Limitations
explaining the high levels of crestal bone loss.[15] Thus, thread The present study used the FEM to investigate the influence
designs such as reverse buttress, which showed more compressive of implant thread designs on its stress distribution. FEA,
stresses, may be considered for bone stimulation.[23] originally used in solving engineering problems, is currently
often applied in implant biomechanics analyses, contributing
The study done by Eraslan O, Inan O demonstrated that
to improvements in implant design and prosthetic planning.
different thread form designs did not affect the Von Mises
While computer modeling offers many advantages over other
stress concentration at supporting bone structure, the results
methods in simulating the complexity that characterizes clinical
of this study were variable because the loads applied were only
situations, FEA is also sensitive to the assumptions made
axial static occlusal load.[8]
regarding model parameters, such as material properties and
A study done by Anitua and Tapia concluded that maximum stress loading and boundary conditions.
was located around the neck of the implant and the majority • FEA is a mathematical in vitro study and may not exactly
of the stress, independent of the parameter being studied, was simulate the clinical situation completely
distributed in the bone adjacent to the first six threads.[1] In the • A state of optimum osseointegration was assumed between
current study, the observation was that the maximum stress was cortical bone, cancellous bone, and implant in the model
located up to the first thread and at the neck of the implant. this may not occur clinically
• All materials were assumed to be linearly elastic and
Another study done by Gonsalves aimed to evaluate the influence homogeneous whereas natural bone is viscoelastic,
of implant with and without thread representation on the outcome isotrophic, and heterogeneous material
of a 2D FEA.[24] Stress distribution in each model as a whole and in • The resultant stress values obtained may not be
cortical bone, trabecular bone, implant, and screw did not seem to quantitatively accurate but are generally accepted
be greatly influenced.The maximumVon Mises stress distribution at qualitatively
the cortical bone implant interfaces showed no differences in either • Chewing forces are dynamic in nature but the loads applied
model, also in trabecular bone. Showed that stress distribution in were static loads
the cortical bone is also not greatly affected by implant shape, given • In the present study, only a segment of mandible with
similar implant necks and lengths unlike the results obtained in the implant was taken into consideration thus gives only a
present study which showed variations with the thread design.[25] general insight into tendencies of stress/strain variations

364 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Oct-Dec 2016 | Vol 16 | Issue 4
 Oswal, et al.: FEA study of implant thread designs

under average conditions, without attempting to simulate thread‑form configurations in a stepped screw implant. J  Oral Rehabil
individual clinical situations 2004;31:233‑9.
6. Misch  CE. Biomaterials for dental implants. In: Contemporary Implant
• Due to the limitations pertaining to this study, further Dentistry. 1st ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999. p. 260.
research regarding 3D FEA combined with long‑term 7. Las Casas  EB, Ferreira  PC, Cimini CA Jr., Toledo  EM, Barra  LP,
clinical evaluation is required. Cruz  M. Comparative 3D finite element stress analysis of straight and
angled wedge‑shaped implant designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
CONCLUSION 2008;23:215‑25.
8. Eraslan O, Inan O. The effect of thread design on stress distribution in
a solid screw implant: A 3D finite element analysis. Clin Oral Investig
FEA is becoming a common and valid method to advance 2010;14:411‑6.
dental technologies.[26] The outcome of this study will help the 9. Lan TH, Du JK, Pan CY, Lee HE, Chung WH. Biomechanical analysis of
dental implant practitioners to predict the success or failure of alveolar bone stress around implants with different thread designs and
pitches in the mandibular molar area. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:363‑9.
the implant based on the thread designs for a given quality of 10. Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of
bone. Within the limitations of the study it was observed that: implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around
• Maximum stresses were seen at the cortical bone compared implants: A 3‑dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac
to the cancellous bone Implants 2003;18:357‑68.
11. Cheng YY, Cheung WL, Chow TW. Strain analysis of maxillary complete
• Stresses which were transferred more to the implant than denture with three‑dimensional finite element method. J  Prosthet Dent
to the bone promote bone preservation 2010;103:309‑18.
• Minimum Von Mises Stress concentration was seen with 12. Silva GC, Mendonça JA, Lopes LR, Landre J Jr. Stress patterns on implants
in prostheses supported by four or six implants: A three‑dimensional finite
reverse buttress thread design at cortical bone which
element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:239‑46.
signifies bone preservation 13. Akça K, Iplikçioglu H. Finite element stress analysis of the influence of
• Minimum Von Mises stresses were concentrated by reverse staggered versus straight placement of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac
buttress thread design which is favorable for preserving the bone Implants 2001;16:722‑30.
14. Nokar S, Baghai Naini R. The effect of superstructure design on stress
• Stress levels were observed maximum at implant and distribution in peri‑implant bone during mandibular flexure. Int J Oral
minimum at the cancellous bone Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:31‑7.
• In view of the above conclusions, it may be inferred that 15. Caglar A, Bal  BT, Aydin  C, Yilmaz  H, Ozkan  S. Evaluation of stresses
the thread selection depending upon the conditions can occurring on three different zirconia dental implants: Three‑dimensional
finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:95‑103.
bring better results. 16. Himmlová L, Dostálová T, Kácovský A, Konvicková S. Influence of implant
length and diameter on stress distribution: A finite element analysis.
This study offers a better understanding of the influence of J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20‑5.
various implant thread designs on stress distribution. Realistic 17. Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Menini M, Pera F, Mossolov A, Drago C, et al. The
influence of cantilever length and implant inclination on stress distribution in
geometries, material properties, loading conditions, and maxillary implant‑supported fixed dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:5‑13.
boundary conditions were considered in this study. The majority 18. Guan H, van Staden R, Loo YC, Johnson N, Ivanovski S, Meredith N. Influence
of stress characteristics were found to correlate well with the of bone and dental implant parameters on stress distribution in the mandible:
previous studies. Some findings were new and will further help A finite element study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:866‑76.
19. Misch CE. A scientific rationale for dental implant design. In: Dental Implant
in the appropriate selection of implant thread design. Prosthetics. 1st ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2004. p. 322‑43.
20. Mosavar A, Ziaei A, Kadkhodaei M. The effect of implant thread design
Financial support and sponsorship on stress distribution in anisotropic bone with different osseointegration
Nil. conditions: A finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
2015;30:1317‑26.
21. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2007.
Conflicts of interest
p. 212‑2.
There are no conflicts of interest. 22. Rismanchian M, Birang R, Shahmoradi M, Talebi H, Zare RJ. Developing a
new dental implant design and comparing its biomechanical features with
REFERENCES four designs. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2010;7:70‑5.
23. Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kiliçarslan MA, Eskitascioglu G. Three‑dimensional
1. Anitua  E, Tapia  R, Luzuriaga  F, Orive  G. Influence of implant length, finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on
diameter, and geometry on stress distribution: A finite element analysis. stress distribution in an implant‑supported crown. J  Prosthet Dent
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:89‑95. 2005;93:227‑34.
2. Teixeira ER, Sato Y, Akagawa Y, Shindoi N. A comparative evaluation of 24. Assunção WG, Gomes EA, Barão VA, de Sousa EA. Stress analysis in
mandibular finite element models with different lengths and elements for simulation models with or without implant threads representation. Int J Oral
implant biomechanics. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:299‑303. Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1040‑4.
3. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant 25. Pierrisnard  L, Hure  G, Barquins  M, Chappard  D. Two dental implants
dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585‑98. designed for immediate loading: A finite element analysis. Int J Oral
4. Clelland NL, Ismail YH, Zaki HS, Pipko D. Three‑dimensional finite element Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:353‑62.
stress analysis in and around the Screw‑Vent implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac 26. Chun HJ, Shin HS, Han CH, Lee SH. Influence of implant abutment type
Implants 1991;6:391‑8. on stress distribution in bone under various loading conditions using finite
5. Geng JP, Ma QS, Xu W, Tan KB, Liu GR. Finite element analysis of four element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:195‑202.

The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Oct-Dec 2016 | Vol 16 | Issue 4 365