journal article·2025-11-28Open access

Influence of Morse Taper Angle and Bone Quality on the Biomechanical Behavior of Dental Implants: A Finite Element Analysis Study

Eunji Kim, Youngjae Yoon, Jae-Eun Kim, Yong-Dae Kwon

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 23

Abstract

This study performed a finite element analysis to evaluate the biomechanical effects of implant connection geometry and bone quality (D2, D4) on stress distribution and structural stability. A mandibular model consisting of cortical and cancellous bone was generated, and implant components—including fixture, abutment, screw, and crown—were simulated. Two designs were analyzed based on Morse taper angle (11° or 15°) and the presence of an apical slot. A tightening torque of 32 N·cm and an occlusal load of 200 N were applied, with the lateral mandible constrained. The 11° taper with the non-slot design showed the highest von Mises stress (1048.81 MPa) in the fixture with D4 bone type and Tessera crown. In contrast, the 15° taper with the slot design improved stress distribution at the fixture–abutment interface, reducing fixture stress by 26.78% in D2 bone type. Localized stress near the slot was observed but did not compromise overall structural stability. Under oblique loading, stress concentrated primarily in the cortical bone, whereas D4 cancellous bone showed increased susceptibility to microdamage. Prosthetic materials demonstrated no significant differences in stress behavior. These findings suggest that connection design and bone density strongly influence biomechanical performance and should guide individualized implant selection.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental materials and restorations · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea

Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea

Funding

Ministry of Education of Korea

References (42)

Show source-provided references
1. Effect of implant-abutment connection design on load bearing capacity and failure mode of implants10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00758.x ↗
2. A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants10.4047/jap.2011.3.4.204 ↗
3. Mechanical failures of dental implants and supported prostheses: A systematic review10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.02.009 ↗
4. Practice-based evidence from 29-year outcome analysis of management of the edentulous jaw using osseointegrated dental implants10.1002/9781119115397.ch14 ↗
5. An in vitro analysis of implant screw torque loss with external hex and internal connection implant systems10.1097/01.id.0000245440.09464.48 ↗
6. The influence of implant-abutment connection to peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1111/cid.12620 ↗
7. Factorial analysis of variables influencing mechanical characteristics of a single tooth implant placed in the maxilla using finite element analysis and the statistics-based Taguchi method10.1111/j.1600-0722.2007.00473.x ↗
8. Comparison of external, internal flat-to-flat, and conical implant abutment connections for implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.029 ↗
9. Marconcini, S., Giammarinaro, E., Covani, U., Mijiritsky, E., Vela, X., and Rodríguez, X. (2019). The Effect of tapered abutments on marginal bone level: A retrospective cohort study. J. Clin. Med., 8.10.3390/jcm8091305 ↗
10. Ribeiro, R.F., da Mata, V.B., Tomaselli, L.d.O., Simionato, A.A., Santos, E.d.S., Faria, A.C.L., Rodrigues, R.C.S., and Nascimento, C.D. (2024). Microbial Leakage through Three Different Implant–Abutment Interfaces on Morse Taper Implants In Vitro. Dent. J., 12.10.3390/dj12070226 ↗
11. Vinhas, A.S., Aroso, C., Salazar, F., López-Jarana, P., Ríos-Santos, J.V., and Herrero-Climent, M. (2020). Review of the mechanical behavior of different implant–abutment connections. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17.10.3390/ijerph17228685 ↗
12. Jeng, M.-D., Lin, Y.-S., and Lin, C.-L. (2020). Biomechanical evaluation of the effects of implant neck wall thickness and abutment screw size: A 3D nonlinear finite element analysis. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10103471 ↗
13. Tribst, J.P.M., Özkara, N., Blom, E.J., Kleverlaan, C.J., Ausiello, P., Bruhnke, M., Feilzer, A.J., and Piva, A.M.d.O.D. (2025). The Effect of Implant–Abutment Contact Area on the Stress Generation of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Implants. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15052744 ↗
14. Zhang, W.-T., Cheng, K.-J., Liu, Y.-F., Wang, R., Chen, Y.-F., Ding, Y.-D., Yang, F., and Wang, L.-H. (2022). Effect of the prosthetic index on stress distribution in Morse taper connection implant system and peri-implant bone: A 3D finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health, 22.10.1186/s12903-022-02465-y ↗
15. Comparative evaluation of the effect of implant crown materials on Implant Components and bone stress distribution: A 3D finite element analysis10.1155/2023/1896475 ↗
16. The Effect of Abutment Angulation and Crown Material Compositions on Stress Distribution in 3-Unit Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Finite Element Analysis10.1155/2022/4451810 ↗
17. Chen, X., Moriyama, Y., Takemura, Y., Rokuta, M., and Ayukawa, Y. (2021). Influence of osteoporosis and mechanical loading on bone around osseointegrated dental implants: A rodent study. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 123.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104771 ↗
18. Yoon, Y., Kim, J.-E., Kim, E., Park, S., Kang, I., and Kwon, Y.-D. (2024). Stability of the Implant–Alveolar Bone Complex According to the Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Bone Quality: A Finite Element Analysis Study. Appl. Sci., 14.10.20944/preprints202412.0777.v1 ↗
19. Effects of implant diameter, implant-abutment connection type, and bone density on the biomechanical stability of implant components and bone: A finite element analysis study10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.042 ↗
20. Stress-based performance evaluation of osseointegrated dental implants by finite-element simulation10.1016/j.simpat.2008.05.009 ↗
21. Effect of Diameter and Length on Stress Distribution of the Alveolar Crest around Immediate Loading Implants10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00124.x ↗
22. Current trends to measure implant stability10.4103/0972-4052.176539 ↗
23. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interface10.1016/0267-6605(92)90049-Y ↗
24. Biomechanical effects of bone quality and design features in dental implants in long-term bone stability
25. Finite element analysis on influence of implant surface treatments, connection and bone types10.1016/j.msec.2016.02.061 ↗
26. Effects of diameters of implant and abutment screw on stress distribution within dental implant and alveolar bone: A three-dimensional finite element analysis10.1016/j.jds.2023.12.020 ↗
27. Biomechanical analysis of alveolar bones with compromised quality supporting a 4-unit implant bridge; a possible association with implant-related sequestration (IRS)10.1007/s00784-024-05589-3 ↗
28. Fem and von mises analysis of OSSTEM® dental implant structural components: Evaluation of different direction dynamic loads10.2174/1874210601812010219 ↗
29. Assessment of different materials used for fabrication of fixed free fixed dental prostheses: Finite element analysis10.1186/s42269-024-01214-1 ↗
30. Monoblocks in root canals: A hypothetical or a tangible goal10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.009 ↗
31. An introduction to the design and behaviour of bolted joints10.1115/1.3269076 ↗
32. Anitua, E., de Ibarra, N.L.S., Martín, I.M., and Rotaeche, L.S. (2021). influence of dental implant diameter and bone quality on the biomechanics of single-crown restoration. A finite element analysis. Dent. J., 9.10.3390/dj9090103 ↗
33. Biomechanical behavior analysis of four types of short implants with different placement depths using the finite element method10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.005 ↗
34. A Critical Review of dental implant materials with an emphasis on titanium versus zirconia10.3390/ma8030932 ↗
35. Brånemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: Clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years
36. Bone “mass” and the “mechanostat”: A proposal10.1002/ar.1092190104 ↗
37. Primary stability of implant placement and loading related to dental implant materials and designs: A literature review10.1016/j.jds.2023.06.010 ↗
38. Biological and mechanical complications of angulated abutments connected to fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review with meta-analysis10.1111/joor.12877 ↗
39. Cho, S.-M., Byun, S.-H., Ahn, S.-Y., Han, H.-S., On, S.-W., Park, S.-Y., Yi, S.-M., Park, I.-Y., Yang, B.-E., and Kim, L.-K. (2025). Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Non-Engaging Abutment and Screw in Internal Implant Systems: Comparative Fatigue and Load Testing. J. Funct. Biomater., 16.10.3390/jfb16030107 ↗
40. Alternative method to salvage an internally damaged implant using cast post10.32542/implantology.2022027 ↗
41. Effect of peri-implant bone resorption on mechanical stress in the implant body: In vivo measured load-based finite element analysis10.1111/joor.13097 ↗
42. The effect of implant neck microthread design on stress distribution of peri-implant bone with different level: A finite element analysis10.1016/j.jds.2019.12.003 ↗