journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden

Review

Nonlinear finite element analyses: Advances and challenges

in dental applications

N. Wakabayashi a,*, M. Ona b, T. Suzuki a, Y. Igarashi b

a
Department of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Iwate Medical University, 1-3-27 Chuodori, Morioka,
Iwate 020-8580, Japan
b
Department of Masticatory Function Rehabilitation, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School,
Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-8549, Japan

article info abstract

Article history: Objectives: To discuss the development and current status of application of nonlinear finite
Received 26 January 2008 element method (FEM) in dentistry.
Received in revised form Data and sources: The literature was searched for original research articles with keywords
26 March 2008 such as nonlinear, finite element analysis, and tooth/dental/implant. References were
Accepted 26 March 2008 selected manually or searched from the PUBMED and MEDLINE databases through Novem-
ber 2007.
Study selection: The nonlinear problems analyzed in FEM studies were reviewed and cate-
Keywords: gorized into: (A) nonlinear simulations of the periodontal ligament (PDL), (B) plastic and
Finite element analysis viscoelastic behaviors of dental materials, (C) contact phenomena in tooth-to-tooth contact,
Nonlinear (D) contact phenomena within prosthodontic structures, and (E) interfacial mechanics
Contact stress between the tooth and the restoration.
Interfacial stress Conclusions: The FEM in dentistry recently focused on simulation of realistic intra-oral
Viscoelasticity conditions such as the nonlinear stress–strain relationship in the periodontal tissues and
the contact phenomena in teeth, which could hardly be solved by the linear static model.
The definition of contact area critically affects the reliability of the contact analyses,
especially for implant–abutment complexes. To predict the failure risk of a bonded
tooth–restoration interface, it is essential to assess the normal and shear stresses relative
to the interface. The inclusion of viscoelasticity and plastic deformation to the program to
account for the time-dependent, thermal sensitive, and largely deformable nature of dental
materials would enhance its application. Further improvement of the nonlinear FEM
solutions should be encouraged to widen the range of applications in dental and oral health
science.
# 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in each element, which performs a model solution. Such a

structural analysis allows the determination of stress and
The finite element method (FEM) involves a series of strain resulting from external force, pressure, thermal change,
computational procedures to calculate the stress and strain and other factors. This method is extremely useful for

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 19 652 3820.

E-mail address: wakabayashi.rpro@tmd.ac.jp (N. Wakabayashi).
0300-5712/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.010
464 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
indicating mechanical aspects of biomaterials and human
tissues that can hardly be measured in vivo. The results
obtained can then be studied using visualization software
within the FEM environment to view a variety of parameters,
and to fully identify implications of the analysis.
Linear static models have been employed extensively in
FEM studies. A constant elastic modulus that represents the
linear stress–strain relationship of a material is input into a
program. Linear analyses are valid if the structure exhibits a
linear stress–strain relationship up to a stress level known as
the proportional limit, and all the volumes are bonded as one
unit. However, the validity of a linear static analysis may be
questionable when the study objectives are to explore more
realistic situations that are usually encountered in the intra-
oral environment. The realistic situations will give rise to
nonlinearities, which can be grouped into the following
principal categories: (1) Material nonlinearities; (2) Changing
interrelation of objects; and (3) Geometric nonlinearities.
Material nonlinearities cause the stiffness of a structure to
change with different load levels, and are expressed in a
program as nonlinear stress–strain relationships. Many
factors that influence stress–strain properties include the
time- and path-dependent load history in elastoplastic
response, environmental conditions such as temperature,
and the amount of time that a load is applied in creep
response. The dynamic behavior of the periodontal ligament
(PDL) and oral soft tissues may well be simulated with this
theory. Changing interrelation of objects is also a structural
behavior that is commonly seen intra-orally in tooth-to-tooth
and material-to-tissue contacts. Geometric nonlinearities are
characterized by large deformations and/or rotations, and
occasionally seen in dental materials such as the dental wires.
Changing geometric configuration can cause the structure to
respond nonlinearly. Often, the stiffness of a structure
increases as the deflection increases.
Nonlinear analysis has become an increasingly powerful
approach to predict stress and strain within structures in a
realistic situation that cannot be solved by a linear static
model. The key elements required for the design and
appropriate utilization of this methodology should be fully
clarified. This paper reviews the recent developments in the
application of the nonlinear FEM in dentistry under the
following headings: (1) nonlinear simulation of periodontal
ligament property, (2) plastic and viscoelastic behaviors in
materials, (3) tooth-to-tooth contact analysis, (4) contact
analyses in implant structures and (5) interfacial stress in
restorations.
2. Nonlinear simulation of periodontal
ligament property
The force–displacement relationship of a tooth under
applied force is represented not by a linearity but by a
nonlinear curve.1 To assume the linear elasticity as a
constant material property of the periodontal ligament
may lead to an erroneous solution. If an intermediate
constant is used as the elastic modulus of PDL, the tooth
displacement would be too small under a relatively low bite
force, and too high under a high load. The use of the linear
static model is suitable only for expression of deformation of
a tooth under a specific range of applied load, defining a
secant elastic modulus of PDL.2–6
To express the nonlinear behavior of PDL, an elastic
property in the form of a stress–strain curve may be input
into an FEM program. The load applied to a model is
subdivided into a series of multiple load increments, which
is known as the Newton–Raphson method.7 In each step, the
program performs a linear solution and checks for conver-
gence. If the convergence criteria are not satisfied, the load
vector is reevaluated, and a new solution is obtained. This
iterative procedure continues until the problem converges. It
is not unusual for more than 10,000 steps to be required to
displace a tooth model 1 mm. Thus, the nonlinear solutions on
a three-dimensional (3D) tooth model usually result in a
tremendous cost of run times on the computer.
Reliable material parameters are indispensable to develop
a constitutive PDL model for accurate calculation of stress and
strain. The stress–strain relationships of PDL were obtained
from bovine molar teeth8 and teeth from human cadavers.9
The former study reported that the elastic modulus of PDL
ranged between 4 MPa and 8 MPa, as defined by the tangential
angle of the quasi-linear segment of the curve to x-axis in the
stress–strain curve. Although the nonlinear and hysteretic PDL
behavior was indicated in the abovementioned studies, the
modulus was calculated based on stress–strain plots with
more than 0.4% strain.8 The nonlinear exponential behavior of
tooth displacement in human subjects was indicated by cases
of incrementally applied loads, where moduli from 0.12 MPa to
0.96 MPa were obtained under loads between 0 N and 2.0 N.10
Lower moduli compared to the above study were observed
under relatively small applied forces, suggesting that values
that cover the range less than 0.4% strain should also be
considered for full-range load cases.
Poppe et al.11 measured the displacements of the incisor
and canine teeth of jaw segments from human cadaver, and
defined an approximated stress–strain relation of PDL as two
lines, or bilinearity. Realistic tooth movements with a
consistent location of the rotational axis were demonstrated
in their FEM models based on this assumption. The
same group further assessed the congruency between
numerical force/deflection curves by various bilinear para-
meters and experimental curves obtained from the rat
mandibular first molars12 and from multi-rooted minipig
teeth.13 The bilinear parameter sets consisting of two Young’s
moduli, E1 = 0.15 MPa and E2 = 0.60 MPa and E1 = 0.05 MPa and
E2 = 0.18 MPa, respectively, were derived.
The stress–strain relation measured in sliced specimens of
a mandibular premolar tooth from a human cadaver was
converted to linear and nonlinear mechanical properties of
the PDL in a two-dimensional (2D) FE model.14 The linear
models underestimated the stress concentration at the tooth
apex and cervical margins in comparison to the nonlinear
models. These results may be explained by the relatively lower
elastic moduli used for the linear models (0.143–0.303 MPa).
Natali et al.15 and Pietrzak et al.16 considered the PDL as a
hyperelastic material with definition for the stored energy
function to estimate the strain range in the PDL. Natali et al.15
indicated that the estimated strain corresponded well with the
in vivo experimental data by Parfitt.17
 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
Cattaneo et al.18 introduced the nonlinear stress–strain
property of PDL in the 3D models with accurate morphology/
geometry of the bone under the orthodontic loading. The
previous theories on compression and tension in the period-
ontium under orthodontic forces were reevaluated with the
direction and magnitude of the estimated stress distributions
in this study. In another study, a higher occlusal loading
scheme including the maximum bite force was simulated in
the 3D incisor model to relate the estimated stress levels and
directions to the occurrence of alveolar bone remodeling.19
Nonlinearity of PDL in this study was assumed by a reverse-
engineering approach based on the load–displacement curves
described in literature by Mühlemann.1
The biological components of PDL make it act like a
viscoelastic material under a sustained occlusal load.20 Time-
dependent intrusion of a tooth occurs under a continuous
force due to the creep behavior of PDL. Menicuci et al.21
simulated a continuous load for 10 s and a transitional load for
5 ms on a natural tooth that was rigidly connected to an
implant by a 3-unit superstructure. Application of the time-
dependent viscoelastic material property of PDL in their 2D
model led to a suggestion that the PDL played a key role in the
stress distribution of the tooth–implant connection. In a
recent study using 3D models, the mandibular bilateral fixed
partial dentures that connected natural canine teeth to
multiple implants were modeled with PDL surrounding the
canines, which were characterized by the nonlinear stress–
strain property.22 The tooth–implant connection in this study
did not show a significant impact on the peri-implant stress
distributions in both cases with single unit and separated
long-span superstructures.
The nonlinear simulation of the PDL properties provides
precision and reliability of the calculated stress and strain
with wide range of tooth movement, while, a linear or bilinear
material properties may be used as a simple solution with
limited accuracy. Recently, characterization of PDL response
under tension–compression load has been considered impor-
tant to reflect the tissue’s mechanical properties under
functional loads. The stress–stretch curve in loading is
different from that in unloading, both in tension and
compression.23 Moreover, the hysteresis and phase lag in
compression were much higher than in tension, suggesting
that the dissipated energy was higher in compression than in
tension.24 It is further suggested that the development may
allow for a time-dependent analysis, with updating the
structural model to account for changes in supporting tissues
with degeneration or necrosis of the PDL and the surrounding
bone.
3. Plastic and viscoelastic behaviors in
materials
Plasticity is characterized by an unrecoverable and path-
dependent phenomenon, and begins when stress exceeds the
material’s yield point. Large deformation and large strain
geometric nonlinearities are often associated with a plastic
material response. Creep is the time-dependent material
nonlinearity in which the material continues to deform under
a constant load. If a displacement is imposed, the reaction
465
force and stress will disappear over time, which in turn causes
stress relaxation. Prediction of transient and residual stresses
in dental materials that exhibit such deformation during
laboratory processing or long-term clinical service can
contribute to the optimization of the material and prostheses.
Nonlinear FEM calculations to simulate the plastic behavior
often require considerable computer resources and expertise
in modeling, meshing, and interpretation of the output. The
determination of the elastic, plastic, and viscoelastic material
properties of a target material often requires mechanical
testing prior to FEM analyses. Once the material properties are
known, simulation of the material and prostheses of complex
geometries and varied dimensions are feasible.
Calculations of the residual stress state in metal-ceramic
and all-ceramic restorations caused by discrepancies in
thermal contraction between materials have been con-
ducted.25,26 To simulate the time-dependent viscoelastic
properties of ceramics at high temperature, the shear stress
relaxation function for each commercial dental ceramic was
calculated based on inversion of the creep data measured by
means of a beam-bending viscometer.27 According to the
authors, the enhancement by inclusion of viscoelasticity could
properly account for the complex nature of the thermal
compatibility of dental ceramics. Otherwise, an erroneous
conclusion would be drawn from the linear elastic properties.
Contraction stress of a composite luting cement was
calculated by an elastic–plastic FEM model.28 Setting behavior
was based on the division of the process into a liquid,
viscoelastic and elastic phase. Two linear stress–strain
relations, Young’s modulus and hardening modulus, were
calculated from a shrinkage–stress relationship obtained from
laboratory tests.
Garriga-Majo et al.29 conducted a simulation of large
deformation of a titanium sheet by means of a nonlinear
FEM program. The laboratory process of the superplastic
forming of the Ti–6Al–4V sheet was conducted by gas pressure,
and aimed to create a membrane prosthesis for ridge
augmentation. The deformation of the titanium sheet was
so large that perforation of the sheet occasionally occurred.
The authors reported that thickness distribution of the
product, manufacturing time, and adaptation to the bone
surface were accurately predicted by the FEM simulation. Root
canal files have also been a material of interest in the
nonlinear FEM analysis.30 The kinematic hardening plastic
deflection of commercial instruments with different cross-
sectional geometry was simulated by input of a nonlinear
stress–strain relationship of the nickel–titanium alloy. As a
result of application of torque force, the maximum stress and
stress distribution produced in each instrument were obtained
and comparatively evaluated. Permanent deformation of
removable denture clasps resulting from static31 and cyclic
loads32 was simulated by a nonlinear FE analysis with large
deformation option based on the maximum distortion energy
criterion. Prediction of the deformation in three cast alloys
showed good agreement with those recorded experimentally.
The residual stress estimated in these models was discussed
in relation to the resistance to clasp fracture during clinical
application. The structural large deformation is often included
as a selective option in an FE program, and the use of this
geometric nonlinearity was rarely described in previous
466 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
literature. However, the geometric nonlinearity as the third
category of the nonlinear solutions must be distinguished
from the material nonlinearity.
4. Tooth-to-tooth contact analysis
Sliding and friction phenomena critically affect the stress and
strain created on the contact surfaces between teeth. The
problems can be partially solved by performing contact
analysis, which is highly nonlinear and difficult to solve due
to the following major issues. First, the contact regions are
unknown until a sequence of the problem has been solved.
Depending upon the load, material, and environmental factors,
the surfaces can move in and out of contact with each other in a
highly unpredictable manner. Secondly, friction factors should
be considered in most contact problems. The frictional
responses are difficult to simulate because both static and
kinetic coefficients of friction depend on the pair of surfaces in
contact; their values are usually determined experimentally but
they are also strongly influenced by the environmental
conditions such as temperature and humidity. The solutions
by the contact analyses are required to estimate stress and
strain on antagonistic and proximal tooth surfaces during
chewing and the magnitude of micro-gap between the surfaces
out of contact. They are beneficial in assessing the effects of
occlusal geometry and hard tissue arrangement relative to
tooth function. However, such works are still challenging due to
the difficulties of convergence to solution for a 3D realistic
biomechanical model.
The contact analyses of tooth surfaces appeared in a study
by Magne and Belser.33 They demonstrated the stress distribu-
tion in maxillary and mandibular molar teeth during the
working, non-working, and vertical closure of the jaw by means
of 2D models. Results indicated that high stresses were found in
the central groove of the maxillary tooth during nonworking
motion and on the lingual surface of the mandibular tooth
during working contact. In this study, change of the contact
point was not simulated. Dejak et al.34 constructed 2D models of
the mandibular molar teeth with PDL and tested food boluses of
different elastic moduli. Contact analysis indicated that food
pieces of low rigidity created considerable stress in the cervical
portion of the lingual alveolar bone of the mandibular molar
tooth, and nonhomogeneous test food that contains a fragment
of bone results in unfavorable stress in the enamel surface. The
same group 35 assessed the mechanism of formation of cervical
lesions, and indicated a considerable overload of the lingual
cusp of the mandibular molar tooth on mastication of a bolus of
high modulus. The initiation of a cervical lesion caused by
overloading was also simulated when tensile stress at this
region exceeded the strength of the enamel. Muraki et al.36
simulated the tooth-to-tooth and tooth-to-prosthesis contact in
3D models, and demonstrated the time-dependent change of
the proximal contact regions and resultant stresses in PDL and
the tooth. The tooth displacement and stress in the periodontal
ligament caused by forces exerted by removable prostheses
were relatively small and within the physiological limit of the
tissues.
A 2D model has been often used in the tooth-to-tooth
contact analyses because of its advantage of reducing the
working time and the computer resources. However, unlikely
to the manufactory products of relatively uniform and orderly
configuration, the 3D modeling has a considerable advantage
in the analyses of the oral tissues with complex and irregular
morphology. Many factors including the boundary condition,
meshing quality and element type of the FE models also
critically affect the validity and reliability of the analyses. To
minimize these effects, preliminary tests such as the
convergence test have been often conducted in recent studies.
A typical application of the tooth-to-tooth contact analysis
is shown in Fig. 1. As the oblique bite force on the first
premolar tooth increased from 1 N to 10 N, the maximum
equivalent stress on the second premolar tooth surface clearly
increased (Fig. 1C and D). More importantly, the proximal
contact point indicated by the maximum stress slightly moved
to buccal due to minor tooth displacements. The displacement
of the contact region was affected by the magnitude and
direction of the force and the friction coefficient of the tooth
surface. The phenomenon in this example is commonly seen
intra-orally, but can hardly be simulated by a linear static FEM.
5. Contact analysis in implant structures
Contact and friction play important roles in the mechanical
behavior of implant prostheses. The contact elements may be
Fig. 1 – A typical application of tooth-to-tooth contact
analysis. A geometrical model consisting of the right
mandibular first (gray-colored) and second (blue-colored)
premolar teeth with contact elements at the proximal
tooth surfaces is viewed from buccal-distal (A) and from
mesial angle (B). The roots and the periodontal ligament
were also modeled but not shown. A distally oblique bite
force of 1 N or 10 N was loaded on the buccal cups of the
first premolar tooth (red arrow in A). Resultant equivalent
stress distributions were shown by stress contour
graphics (C for 1 N and D for 10 N). In these contour
pictures, the surface area of the highest stress level was
indicated by red, while that of the lowest level was colored
by blue (color bar by stress level). Note that the proximal
contact point indicated by the maximum stress slightly
moved to buccal as the increase of the bite force,
suggesting the occurrence of minor tooth displacements.
 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
defined in two or more of the following components: implant
bodies, threads, abutments, abutment screws, cylinders, and
bone. The contact zones in the FEM models transfer only
pressure and tangential frictional forces, while tension is not
transferred. Since the screw joint integrity at the implant–
abutment joint is essential for long-term success of implant
restoration, increasing number of contact analyses have been
used to assess the stress concentration in the implant
structures and its influence on the supporting bone.
Superior stress-relieving mechanics of a taper joint con-
nection compared to the butt joint in the ITI implant system
was indicated by means of 3D FE models with the contact
option.37 Experimentally measured clamping force was used
as the preload, which was simulated by thermal stress.
Perriard et al.38 investigated the effect of an internal keying
mechanism on the fatigue strength of the connection between
implant and abutment. A contact analysis indicated a very
high stress concentration at the apical edges of the octagonal
keying connector. The authors indicated that the reason of
this unrealistically high stress was that their model ignored
the plastic deformation of the metal in the zones of contact
pressure. In light of this study, the FEM program must include
plastic deformation of a metal at a site of high stress. Bozkaya
and Müftü39 conducted an elastic–plastic FEM analysis to
determine the contact pressure at the implant–abutment
interface. The implant and the abutment were modeled with
bilinear elastic–plastic material properties. Contact pressure
on the tapered interface and plastic deformation of the metal
were clearly identified.
Lang et al.40 applied preload on two Brånemark implant–
abutment units as a function of tightening torque with varying
coefficients of friction at the interfaces. The preload amount
produced by the recommended torque was much greater
when a lower coefficient was used. The contact region on the
interface was not identified in this study. Another study on the
effect of preload was conducted using contact elements on the
mating surfaces of the components.41 The preload was
developed within the screw by placing a thermal load on
the unthreaded shank of both screws. The results of static
occlusal load indicated that the maximum stresses did not
reach the yield strength of the metals. In another study, a cycle
of five intermittent impulsive loads was used to evaluate
abutment screw loosening in two implant systems.42 The
result indicated greater rotational movement and loosening in
the external hex joint than in the tapered connection.
Lin and colleagues43,44 conducted a series of analyses on
the mechanical interactions of implant–teeth splinting sys-
tems with rigid or non-rigid connectors. Contact analyses
were used to simulate the interfacial friction between the
components and in the keyway device of the non-rigid
connector. They indicated that the function of the stress-
breaker keyway device became obvious only when occlusal
forces acted on natural teeth.45 The same group investigated
the relative contribution of multiple design factors in implant
systems, and indicated that a tapered interface fit connection
performed better as a force-transmission mechanism than
other systems.46 Akça and co-workers47–49 conducted a series
of contact analyses to evaluate the mechanical characteristics
of the implant–abutment complex. A comparison between the
FEM and in vitro strain gauge measurements was performed.47
467
The quantification of strains was in agreement for vertical
loading, however, higher strains were measured on the
implant collar by FEM in comparison to strain gauges. The
possible reasons for this incompatibility suggested by the
authors were the lack of the influence of preload application in
their FEM as well as the experimental errors that potentially
occurred in the strain gauges. Using a similar FE model, the
precise locations of peak stress in the connector of a reduced-
diameter ITI implant system were identified.48 Another
comparative study of one-piece and two-piece tapered ITI
implant systems indicated that the difference was not a
decisive factor for the magnitude and distribution of stres-
ses.49 In their recent study, the single-body, internal-hex, and
external hex implant–abutment connections were modeled to
investigate the stresses in the bone and the implant
structures.50 The results indicated that the internal type
generated the lowest maximum stresses because of the
reduced bending effects when sliding in the tapered joints.
However, the result could be primarily attributed to a
substantial difference in the contact area assumed in the
models; the tapered joint surface and abutment neck for the
internal model, while only a small area in the base of the hex
for the external model. The former was likely to allow flexible
bending of the implant collar, and resulted in lower stress in
bone and higher stress concentration at the neck of the
abutment screw. The latter might create a more rigid implant
structure and a higher stress concentration at the cervical
region of the cortical bone. In light of this investigation, it was
suggested that the area of contact assumed in models greatly
influenced the stress distribution.
Most contact analyses of the implant–abutment connec-
tion boldly assumed a perfect surface-to-surface contact prior
to loading along the interface from tip to bottom of each
thread. This may be unrealistic, because line-to-line or point-
to-point contacts with visible gaps are more likely to occur
than the perfect surface-to-surface contact. This has been
often evidenced in the cross-sectional images of the screws
and threads.51,52 It can be speculated that the assumed perfect
contact may act as a compensation factor to relieve stress
concentration in the FE models that is actually prevented by
the plastic deformation of metal in reality.
6. Interfacial stress in restorations
Stress analysis at the tooth–restoration complex has been
performed to predict the failure risk at the interface as well as
within the bonded tooth structures. In a linear static analysis,
an interfacial surface between individual structures with
different elastic properties shares the same node, represent-
ing the perfect bond. This conventional approach occasionally
leads to erroneous interpretation in the FEM results.
Fig. 2 shows a simplified 2D FEM model of an endodonti-
cally treated single-root tooth restored with a cast gold or
fiber-reinforced composite post-and-core. The linear analysis
was conducted here to assess the effect of post-material on
fracture resistance of root dentin. The stress contour indicated
higher stress concentration in the cast post-compared to the
composite post, while the stress distribution in the root dentin
was nearly identical in these models and the maximum stress
468 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
Fig. 2 – A common post-and-core solution by a linear FE
analysis. 2D FE models of an endodontically treated
single-root tooth restored with cast gold or fiber-
reinforced composite post-and-core (dark gray area in A)
were constructed. Cement layer was excluded from the
models for simplicity. The crown restoration, the
periodontal ligament and the surrounding bone were
modeled but not shown. Elastic moduli assumed were;
95 GPa for gold alloy, 30 GPa for fiber-reinforced
composite, 18 GPa for dentin, and 100 GPa for crown
restoration. All the materials were assumed elastic
isotropic, and perfectly bonded, and the external surface of
the bone block was fixed. A static oblique force was
applied on the occlusal surface of the crown (red arrow).
Resultant equivalent stress distributions were shown by
stress contour graphics for the models with the cast gold
(B) and with the composite core (C). The graphics were
highlighted at the interface region of the post and the root.
Area of the highest stress level was indicated by red zone,
while that of the lowest level was expressed by blue color.
It was clearly indicated in this linear analysis that a higher
stress concentration was revealed in the cast post-
compared to the composite post, while in the root dentin,
the stress level was nearly identical in two models.
was even slightly lower in the root with the cast post. The
result was reasonable because the cast gold with high
modulus was likely to absorb a large amount of stress, while
the stress was evenly distributed in the composite core and the
root because of closer elastic moduli between the composite
and dentin. The identical stress distribution shown in the
roots in two situations suggests a comparable risk of root
fracture with these materials. However, the majority of
clinicians may raise questions about this result, because
clinical studies have reported lower incidence of root fracture
with low-modulus post-materials such as composite.53
The problem in this analysis was probably due to the
assumption of perfect bonding between dentin and the post-
material. In reality, even when a good bond is obtained,
microcracks or debonding can develop at sites where inter-
facial stress exceeds bond strength. An early debonding at the
tooth–restoration interface may cause a dramatic change of
stress distribution that can lead to an immediate propagation
of the interfacial failure. The cast post may then act as a
cantilever beam which would fracture the root dentin with a
relatively low bite force. It is suggested in this linear analysis
that the prediction of the failure risk of a tooth–restoration
complex may not be valid unless it is considered in relation to
the propagation of the interfacial failure, which cannot be
comprehensively simulated by a linear static analysis.
The stress at the interface between the class I restoration
and cavity wall was calculated from polymerization contrac-
tion of the composite and the luting cement.54 A Maxwell
model as a function of curing time was used to represent the
time-dependent, viscoplastic material properties of the
composite and the cement. The normal and the tangential
component of the traction vector produced by the inlay were
substantially higher than the directly placed bulk restoration.
The authors concluded that the result was due to the
viscoelastic flow of uncured resin. Lin et al.55 performed
contact analysis at the interface between a class II restoration
and cavity wall and compared it with the linear analysis. They
indicated that the contact condition might increase the
fracture potential compared with the bonded interface
expressed by the linear analysis, and an unfavorable stress
gradient became evident as the cavity depth increased. In
recent studied by the same group, the mechanisms of the
prosthesis/tooth interface debonding in resin-bonded pros-
theses56 and in ceramic restorations57 were assessed on the
basis of the normal and shear interfacial stresses calculated by
means of contact elements in their 3D models. Duyck et al.58
performed a nonlinear contact analysis of the implant–bone
interface. They assigned a tensile strength of 1 MPa at the
interface, which would be broken when tensile stress normal
to the interface exceeded the strength. Displacement of an
implant relative to the bone socket with resultant gap space
was clearly demonstrated in the strain contour graphic in this
study.
The interfacial stress between acrylic resin and the Co–Cr
alloy framework created by polymerization shrinkage in
removable dentures was calculated by a surface-to-surface
contact analysis, and was compared directly with the tensile
bond strength between the materials.59 Area percentages in
the resin–metal joint that showed interfacial tensile stress
over the tensile bond strength were used to estimate the
failure risk of the interface and to evaluate existing poly-
merization and adhesive procedures.
The stress at the tooth–restoration interface and within the
material was calculated in upper premolar teeth with cusp–
replacing resin composite restorations.60 The normal and
shear stresses relative to the interface were obtained by
means of linear elastic FE models with bonded interface.
Safety factor at the interface was calculated by dividing the
bond strength values by the stress level beyond 10% of
the interface surface area. The results indicated that failure of
the interface occurred more likely than failure of the
composite material. It was suggested that a comparative
study of the stress at the interface with that within the
material could well predict failure in a bonded restoration.
Adaptive growth, or a repeating auto-modification process
in cavity geometry with the optimization cycles, was applied
to 2D FE models of the premolar tooth.61 Nonlinear contact
conditions were created along the tooth–restoration interface
to allow for imperfect bonding. The frictional coefficients were
used to define the interfacial condition, for example, a very
low frictional coefficient of 0.01 was used to represent virtually
 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
no bonding. The results indicated that significant reduction in
the maximum stress at the interface was achieved using the
optimization technique. Ichim et al.62,63 produced 2D FE
models of non-carious cervical lesions and applied the
discrete solver to the program. This allows an automatic
transition from continuum to discrete at a high stress field for
a time-dependent simulation of the failure development
process. Strain softening due to micro-damage of the
materials was demonstrated in nonlinear plots of the
maximum tensile stress as a function of load. Relatively high
stiffness of the existing restorative materials created stress
concentration that could initiate a failure at the cervical
margin.
To conduct a direct comparison between the interfacial
stress and the reported experimental bond strengths, the
normal and shear stresses relative to the interfacial surface
are essential. Fig. 3 shows the principal stress distribution by
arrow indication at the region near the internal line angle of a
class I cavity restored with composite filling. It clearly reveals
that the compressive stresses developed perpendicular to the
tooth–restoration interface at the cavity floor, while the tensile
stress direction was oblique to the interfacial planes on the
axial wall and the cavity floor. In this context, it would be a
fault to compare the maximum tensile stress with the
reported tensile bond strength because the latter has been
Fig. 3 – Principal stress directions at the tooth–restoration
interface. A linear static model of a premolar tooth with
class I cavity restored with composite bulk filling is shown
by the bucco-lingual cross-section (A). The tooth tissues
and the materials were assumed linear elastic and they
were perfectly bonded each other. A vertical bite force was
assumed on the occlusal surface of the restoration in the
FE calculation. Resultant arrow graphic for the principal
stress distribution was highlighted at the region near the
internal line angle in the cavity bottom (B). Closed arrows
(>–<) represent the principal 3rd (compressive) stress at
each element, while open arrows ($) represent the
principal 1st (tensile) stress. The length of the arrows
indicates the stress intensity. The compressive stresses
were dominantly distributed perpendicular to the tooth–
restoration interface on the cavity bottom, while the
tensile stresses were so low in magnitude and obliquely
oriented at the interface. It was clearly shown that the
orientations of the principal stresses at any site on the
tooth–restoration interface did not coincide with those in
the tensile bond tests.
469
measured under a tensile load that was perpendicular to the
bonded surface. The von Mises equivalent stress at this site
usually represents compression, thus the use of this stress
scale may also be irrelevant. Theoretically, the initial
debonding at an interface occurs when the normal stress
exceeds the tensile strength or the shear stress overtakes the
shear bond strength.
7. Conclusions
The nonlinear FE analysis has become an increasingly powerful
approach to predict stress and strain within structures in a
realistic situation that cannot be solved by conventional linear
static models. The nonlinear simulation of the PDL properties
enhances a precise estimation of the stress and strain with wide
range of tooth movement. The determination of the elastic,
plastic, and viscoelastic material properties of a target material
often requires mechanical testing prior to FEM analyses. Once
the material properties are known, simulation of the material
and prostheses of complex geometries and varied dimensions
are feasible. To predict the failure risk of a bonded tooth–
restoration interface, it is essential to assess the normal and
shear interfacial stresses. The use of nonlinear FEM in dental
applications was reported in literature recently, however, the
validity and reliability have not been sufficiently established.
Further development of the nonlinear FEM solutions is
encouraged to gain a wide range of mechanical solutions that
would be beneficial for dental and oral health science.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by KAKENHI 20592307 (to N.W.) and
High-Tech Research Project 2005–2009 (to Iwate Medical
University), both from JSPS/MEXT.
references
1. Mühlemann HR. Periodontometry, a method for measuring
tooth mobility. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology oral
radiology and endodontics 1951;4:1220–33.
2. Rees JS, Jacobsen PH. Elastic modulus of the periodontal
ligament. Biomaterials 1997;18:995–9.
3. Middleton J, Jones M, Wilson A. The role of the periodontal
ligament in bone modeling: the initial development of a
time-dependent finite element model. American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1996;109:155–62.
4. Provatidis CG. A comparative FEM-study of tooth mobility
using isotropic and anisotropic models of the periodontal
ligament. Finite Element Method. Medical Engineering and
Physics 2000;22:359–70.
5. Jones ML, Hickman J, Middleton J, Knox J, Volp C. A validated
finite element method study of orthodontic tooth
movement in the human subject. Journal of Orthodontics
2001;28:29–38.
6. Yettram AL, Wright KW, Pickard HM. Finite element stress
analysis of the crowns of normal and restored teeth. Journal
of Dental Research 1976;55:1004–11.
7. Süli E, Mayers D. An introduction to numerical analysis.
Cambridge University Press; 2003.
470 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
8. Pini M, Zysset P, Botsis J, Contro R. Mechanical
characterization of bovine periodontal ligament. Journal of
Periodontal Research 2002;37:237–44.
9. Durkee M. The non-linear stress–strain behavior of the
human periodontal ligament and its effect on finite element
models of dental structures. University of Maryland. PhD
theses; 1996.
10. Yoshida N, Koga Y, Peng CL, Tanaka E, Kobayashi K. In vivo
measurement of the elastic modulus of the human
periodontal ligament. Medical Engineering and Physics
2001;23:567–72.
11. Poppe M, Bourauel C, Jäger A. Determination of the elasticity
parameters of the human periodontal ligament and the
location of the center of resistance of single-rooted teeth a
study of autopsy specimens and their conversion into finite
element models. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 2002;63:358–70.
12. Kawarizadeh A, Bourauel C, Jäger A. Experimental and
numerical determination of initial tooth mobility and
material properties of the periodontal ligament in rat molar
specimens. European Journal of Orthodontics 2003;25:569–78.
13. Ziegler A, Keilig L, Kawarizadeh A, Jäger A, Bourauel C.
Numerical simulation of the biomechanical behaviour of
multi-rooted teeth. European Journal of Orthodontics
2005;27:333–9.
14. Toms SR, Eberhardt AW. A nonlinear finite element analysis
of the periodontal ligament under orthodontic tooth
loading. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopedics 2003;123:657–65.
15. Natali AN, Pavan PG, Scarpa C. Numerical analysis of tooth
mobility: formulation of a non-linear constitutive law for
the periodontal ligament. Dental Materials 2004;20:623–9.
16. Pietrzak G, Curnier A, Botsis J, Scherrer S, Wiskott A, Belser
U. A nonlinear elastic model of the periodontal ligament
and its numerical calibration for the study of tooth mobility.
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
2002;5:91–100.
17. Parfitt GJ. Measurement of the physiological mobility of
individual teeth in an axial direction. Journal of Dental
Research 1960;39:608–18.
18. Cattaneo PM, Dalstra M, Melsen B. The finite element
method: a tool to study orthodontic tooth movement.
Journal of Dental Research 2005;84:428–33.
19. Ona M, Wakabayashi N. Influence of alveolar support on
stress in periodontal structures. Journal of Dental Research
2006;85:1087–91.
20. Picton DC, Wills DJ. Viscoelastic properties of the
periodontal ligament and mucous membrane. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 1978;40:263–72.
21. Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, Lorenzetti M, Preti G.
Tooth–implant connection: some biomechanical aspects
based on finite element analyses. Clinical Oral Implants
Research 2002;13:334–41.
22. Maezawa N, Shiota M, Kasugai S, Wakabayashi N. Three-
dimensional stress analysis of tooth/implant-retained long-
span fixed dentures. International Journal of Oral and
Maxillofacial Implants 2007;22:710–8.
23. Pini M, Zysset P, Botsis J, Contro R. Tensile and compressive
behaviour of the bovine periodontal ligament. Journal of
Biomechanics 2004;37:111–9.
24. Shibata T, Botsis J, Bergomi M, Mellal A, Komatsu K.
Mechanical behavior of bovine periodontal ligament under
tension-compression cyclic displacements. European Journal
of Oral Sciences 2006;114:74–82.
25. DeHoff PH, Anusavice KJ. Viscoelastic stress analysis of
thermally compatible and incompatible metal-ceramic
systems. Dental Materials 1998;14:237–45.
26. DeHoff. Anusavice. Shear stress relaxation of dental
ceramics determined from creep behavior. Dental Materials
2004;20:717–25.
27. DeHoff PH, Anusavice KJ. Creep functions of dental
ceramics measured in a beam-bending viscometer. Dental
Materials 2004;20:297–304.
28. De Jager N, Pallav P, Feilzer AJ. Finite element analysis
model to simulate the behavior of luting cements during
setting. Dental Materials 2005;21:1025–32.
29. Garriga-Majo D, Paterson RJ, Curtis RV, Said R, Wood RD,
Bonet J. Optimisation of the superplastic forming of a dental
implant for bone augmentation using finite element
simulations. Dental Materials 2004;20:409–18.
30. Xu X, Eng M, Zheng Y, Eng D. Comparative study of torsional
and bending properties for six models of nickel-titanium
root canal instruments with different cross-sections. Journal
of Endodontics 2006;32:372–5.
31. Mahmoud AA, Wakabayashi N, Takahashi H. Prediction of
permanent deformation in cast clasps for denture
prostheses using a validated nonlinear finite element
model. Dental Materials 2007;23:317–24.
32. Mahmoud A. Pre-overloading to extend fatigue life of cast
clasps. Journal of Dental Research 2007;86:868–72.
33. Magne P, Belser UC. Rationalization of shape and related
stress distribution in posterior teeth: a finite element study
using nonlinear contact analysis. International Journal of
Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 2002;22:425–33.
34. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A, Romanowicz M. Finite element
analysis of stresses in molars during clenching and
mastication. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2003;90:591–7.
35. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A, Romanowicz M. Finite element
analysis of mechanism of cervical lesion formation in
simulated molars during mastication and parafunction.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2005;94:520–9.
36. Muraki H, Wakabayashi N, Park I, Ohyama T. Finite element
contact stress analysis of the RPD abutment tooth and
periodontal ligament. Journal of Dentistry 2004;32:659–65.
37. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant–
abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt
joint connection. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial
Implants 2000;15:519–26.
38. Perriard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS, Botsis J, Belser
UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant–abutment
connectors—a comparison of the standard cone with a
novel internally keyed design. Clinical Oral Implants Research
2002;13:542–9.
39. Bozkaya D, Müftü S. Mechanics of the tapered interference fit
in dental implants. Journal of Biomechanics 2003;36:1649–58.
40. Lang LA, Kang B, Wang RF, Lang BR. Finite element analysis
to determine implant preload. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2003;90:539–46.
41. Alkan I, Sertgoz A, Ekici B. Influence of occlusal forces on
stress distribution in preloaded dental implant screws.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2004;91:319–25.
42. Kitagawa T, Tanimoto Y, Odaki M, Nemoto K, Aida M.
Influence of implant/abutment joint designs on abutment
screw loosening in a dental implant system. Journal of
Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials
2005;75:457–63.
43. Lin CL, Wang JC. Nonlinear finite element analysis of a
splinted implant with various connectors and occlusal
forces. The international Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants
2003;18:331–40.
44. Lin CL, Wang JC, Kuo YC. Numerical simulation on the
biomechanical interactions of tooth/implant-supported
system under various occlusal forces with rigid/non-rigid
connections. Journal of Biomechanics 2006;39:453–63.
45. Lin CL, Chang SH, Wang JC, Chang WJ. Mechanical
interactions of an implant/tooth-supported system under
different periodontal supports and number of splinted teeth
with rigid and non-rigid connections. Journal of Dentistry
2006;34:682–91.
 journal of dentistry 36 (2008) 463–471
46. Lin CL, Chang SH, Chang WJ, Kuo YC. 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 method. European
Journal of Oral Sciences 2007;115:408–16.
47. Iplikçioğlu H, Akça K, Cehreli MC, Sahin S. Comparison of
non-linear finite element stress analysis with in vitro strain
gauge measurements on a Morse taper implant. International
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2003;18:258–65.
48. Akça K, Cehreli MC, Iplikçioğlu H. Evaluation of the
mechanical characteristics of the implant–abutment
complex of a reduced-diameter morse-taper implant. A
nonlinear finite element stress analysis. Clinical Oral Implants
Research 2003;14:444–54.
49. Cehreli MC, Akça K, Iplikçioğlu H. Force transmission of
one- and two-piece morse-taper oral implants: a nonlinear
finite element analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research
2004;15:481–9.
50. Chun HJ, Shin HS, Han CH, Lee SH. Influence of implant
abutment type on stress distribution in bone under various
loading conditions using finite element analysis. International
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2006;21:195–202.
51. Martin WC, Woody RD, Miller BH, Miller AW. Implant
abutment screw rotations and preloads for four different
screw materials and surfaces. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2001;86:24–32.
52. Bolind PK, Johansson CB, Becker W, Langer L, Sevetz Jr EB,
Albrektsson TO. A descriptive study on retrieved non-
threaded and threaded implant designs. Clinical Oral
Implants Research 2005;16:447–55.
53. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcı́a-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of
fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores.
American Journal of Dentistry 2000;13:15B–8B.
54. Hubsch PF, Middleton J, Knox J. A finite element analysis of
the stress at the restoration-tooth interface, comparing
inlays and bulk fillings. Biomaterials 2000;21:1015–9.
471
55. Lin CL, Chang CH, Wang CH, Ko CC, Lee HE. Numerical
investigation of the factors affecting interfacial stresses
in an MOD restored tooth by auto-meshed finite
element method. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2001;28:
517–25.
56. Lin CL, Lee HE, Wang CH, Chang KH. Integration of CT, CAD
system and finite element method to investigate interfacial
stresses of resin-bonded prosthesis. Computer Methods and
Programs in Biomedicine 2003;72:55–64.
57. Lin CL, Chang YH, Chang WJ, Cheng MH. Evaluation of a
reinforced slot design for CEREC system to restore
extensively compromised premolars. Journal of Dentistry
2006;34:221–9.
58. Duyck J, Rønold HJ, Van Oosterwyck H, Naert I, Vander
Sloten J, Ellingsen JE. The influence of static and dynamic
loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated
implants: an animal experimental study. Clinical Oral
Implants Research 2001;12:207–18.
59. Ikeda T, Wakabayashi N, Ona M, Ohyama T. Effects of
polymerization shrinkage on the interfacial stress at resin–
metal joint in denture-base: a non-linear FE stress analysis.
Dental Materials 2006;22:413–9.
60. Fennis WM, Kuijs RH, Barink M, Kreulen CM, Verdonschot
N, Creugers NH. Can internal stresses explain the fracture
resistance of cusp–replacing composite restorations?
European Journal of Oral Sciences 2005;113:443–8.
61. Couegnat G, Fok SL, Cooper JE, Qualtrough AJ. Structural
optimization of dental restorations using the principle of
adaptive growth. Dental Materials 2006;22:3–12.
62. Ichim I, Li Q, Loughran J, Swain MV, Kieser J. Restoration of
non-carious cervical lesions. Part I. Modelling of restorative
fracture. Dental Materials 2007;23:1553–61.
63. Ichim IP, Schmidlin PR, Li Q, Kieser JA, Swain MV.
Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Part II.
Restorative material selection to minimize fracture. Dental
Materials 2007;23:1562–9.