Static and dynamic compression load tests of conically connected, screw fixed dental abutment

Implant assemblies




titanium implant; dynamic load; static load; conical angle, implant-abutment connection, screw loosening


The basis of the long-term success of dental implants is the mechanical stability of the implant and the superstructure anchored in it. In order to investigate the mechanical behaviour of the conical connection in implant-abutment units, static and dynamic load tests were performed with different conical angles and various Grade 4-5 titanium implant materials. The assembled units were mounted in self-developed loading machine and in an Instron ElectroPuls E3000 fatigue machine. For static loading, the samples were loaded with a force from 0 N to 500 N in steps of 100 N. For dynamic loading, the samples were loaded for 30,000 cycles with a force of 250 ± 150 N. In case of static testing, the compression caused by the load was measured in both horizontal and vertical directions, while in the case of dynamic fatigue, only horizontal deformation was defined. In both cases, the drive-out (reverse) torque values of the fixing screws were determined after loading. No significant differences were found between the tested materials in the reverse torque after the static load, however, significant differences were shown with regards to the alterations in cone angle (p < 0.001). After dynamic loading, significant differences (p < 0.001) were also observed between the reverse torques of the fixing screw in different angles. The static and dynamic test results showed the same tendency: under the same load conditions, the conical angle value of the implant-abutment connection revealed significant differences in the loosening of the fixing screw. In summary, it is recommended to use higher conical angle connection to avoid larger deformations in lengths and diameters of the implant at the connection and essential torque reduction of the fixing screw. Our results may contribute to the understanding of the long-term success of dental implants.


Download data is not yet available.


H.J. Haugen, H. Chen, 2022. Is There a Better Biomaterial for Dental Implants than Titanium? - A Review and Meta-Study Analysis. J. Funct. Biomater. 13: e46.

G. Ustaoglu, D. G. Bulut, Z. U. Aydin, 2022. The Effect of Single-Tooth Implant Restorations on Prognosis of Adjacent Teeth and on Fractal Dimension of Peri-Implant Trabecular Bone: A Retrospective Study. Selcuk Dent. J. 9: 208-215.

C. Pandey, D. Rokaya, B.P. Bhattarai, 2022. Contemporary Concepts in Osseointegration of Dental Implants: A Review. BioMed Res. Int. 2022: e6170452.

L. Bing, T. Mito, N. Yoda, E. Sato, R. Shigemitsu, J. M. Han, K. Sasaki, 2020. Effect of peri-implant bone resorption on mechanical stress in the implant body: In vivo measured load-based finite element analysis. J. Oral Rehabil. 47: 1566-1573.

D.T. Száva, A. Száva, J. Száva, B. Gálfi, S. Vlase, 2022. Dental Implant and Natural Tooth Micro-Movements during Mastication-In Vivo Study with 3D VIC Method. J. Pers. Med. 12: e1690.

C.L. de Andrade, M.A. Carvalho, D. Bordin, W.J. da Silva, A.A.B. Cury, B.S. Sotto-Maior, 2017. Biomechanical Behavior of the Dental Implant Macrodesign. Int. J. Maxillofac. Implants 32: 264-270.

G.A. Zarb, A. Schmitt, 1990. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III. Problems and complication encountered. J. Prosthet. Dent. 64: 185-194.

P. Vigolo, F. Fonzi, Z. Majzoub, G. Cordioli, 2006. An in vitro evaluation of titanium, zirconia, and alumina procera abutments with hexagonal connection. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 21: 575-80.

Á.L. Nagy, Z. Tóth, T. Tarjányi, N.T. Práger, Z.L. Baráth, 2021. Biomechanical properties of the bone during implant placement. BMC Oral Health 21: e86.

C. Cumbo, L. Marigo, F. Somma, G. La Torre, I. Minciacchi, A. D’Addona, 2013. Implant platform switching concept: a literature review. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 17: 392-397.

R. J. Lazzara, S.S. Porter, 2006. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 26: 9-17.

I. S. Moon, T. Berglundh, I. Abrahamsson, E. Linder, J. Lindhe, 1999. The barrier between the keratinized mucosa and the dental implant. An experimental study in the dog. J. Clin. Periodontol. 26: 658–63.

S. Elleuch, H. Jrad, A. Kessentini, M. Wali, F. Dammak, 2021. Design optimization of implant geometrical characteristics enhancing primary stability using FEA of stress distribution around dental prosthesis. Comp. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engineering 24: 1035-1051.

O. Camps-Font, L. Rubianes-Porta, E. Valmaseda-Castellón, R.E. Jung, C, Gay-Escoda, R. Figueiredo, 2021. 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 trials. J. Prosthet. Dent.

Y. Kuang-Ta, H. Kao, C.K. Cheng, H.W. Fang, M.L. Hsu, 2019. Mechanical performance of conical implant-abutment connections under different cyclic loading conditions. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 90: 426–432.

A. S. Vinhas, C. Aroso, F. Salazar, P. López-Jarana, J.V. Ríos-Santos, M. Herrero-Climent, 2020. Review of the Mechanical Behavior of Different Implant–Abutment Connections. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17: e8685.

C. M. Chu, H.L. Huang, J. T. Hsu, L. J. Fuh, 2012. Influences of internal tapered abutment designs on bone stresses around a dental implant: three-dimensional finite element method with statistical evaluation. J. Periodontol. 83: 111-118.

M. Karl, TD. Taylor, 2014. Parameters determining micromotion at the implant-abutment interface. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 29: 1338-47.

G. Körtvélyessy, Á.L. Szabó, I. Pelsőczi-Kovács, T. Tarjányi, Z. Tóth, K. Krisztina, D. Matusovits, B.D. Hangyási, Z.L. Baráth, 2023. Different Conical Angle Connection of Implant and Abutment Behavior: A Static and Dynamic Load Test and Finite Element Analysis Study. Materials 16: e1988.

T. Paepoemsin, P.A. Reichart, P. Chaijareenont, F.P. Strietzel, P. Khongkhunthian, 2016. Removal torque evaluation of three different abutment screws for single implant restorations after mechanical cyclic loading. Oral Implantol. 9: 213-221.

K. Benjaboonyazit, P. Chaijareenont, P. Khongkhunthian, 2019. Removal torque pattern of a combined cone and octalobule index implant-abutment connection at different cyclic loading: an in-vitro experimental study. Int J Implant Dent 5: e1.

Joo-Hee Lee, Cha. Hyun-Suk, 2018. Screw loosening and changes in removal torque relative to abutment screw length in a dental implant with external abutment connection after oblique cyclic loading. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 10: 415-421.




How to Cite

Körtvélyessy, G., Hangyási, D. B., Tarjányi, T., Tóth, Z., Matusovits, D., Pelsőczi-Kovács , I., & Baráth, Z. (2023). Static and dynamic compression load tests of conically connected, screw fixed dental abutment: Implant assemblies. Analecta Technica Szegedinensia, 17(3), 1–12.




Funding data

Most read articles by the same author(s)