{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Comparison of implant placement at crestal and subcrestal levels in aesthetic zone: A finite element analysis.
{Author}: Özer T;Acar G;
{Journal}: J Prosthodont
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Aug 13
{Factor}: 3.485
{DOI}: 10.1111/jopr.13930
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>The success rate of the implant treatment, including aesthetics and long-term survival, relies heavily on preserving crestal peri-implant bone, as it determines the stability and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to demonstrate the stress differences in the crestal bone resulting from dental implant placement at various depths relative to the crestal bone level using finite element analysis.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Three study models were prepared for implant placement at the crestal bone level (CL), 1 mm depth (SL-1), and 2 mm depth (SL-2). Implants were placed in the maxillary central incisor region of each model, and 100 N vertical and oblique forces were applied. The von Mises, maximum principal (tensile), and minimum principal (compressive) stresses were evaluated.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>The CL model exhibited the highest stresses on the implant, abutment, and abutment screws under vertical and oblique forces. For maximum principal stress in the crestal bone under vertical force, the SL-2, SL-1, and CL models recorded values of 6.56, 6.26, and 5.77 MPa, respectively. Under oblique forces, stress values for SL-1, SL-2, and CL were 25.3, 24.91, and 23.76 MPa, respectively. The CL model consistently exhibited the lowest crestal bone stress at all loads and the highest stress values on the implant and its components. Moreover, considering the yield strengths of the materials, no mechanical or physiological complications were noted.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Placing the implant at the crestal level or subcrestally beyond the cortical layer could potentially reduce stress and minimize crestal bone loss. However, further studies are warranted for confirmation.