Study of the Substantial Factors while Conceptualizing Implant Failure in the Field of Dentistry: An Overview

Abstract

Implantology is constantly shifting and upgrading. Innovative redesign and developments in implant research and development aim to improve implant success rates. Advanced technology have transformed three-dimensional patient evaluation, foster doctors to assess, plan, and treat accurately as well. This multidisciplinary patient-centric paradigm allows for customized and successful therapy. Here, Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a light-weight bioinert, robust thermoplastic, is being used in orthopaedics and constantly researched as an alternative dental biomaterial. As, PEEK has better chemical resistance and stress shielding than metallic materials, making it ideal for implanted applications. Although the for in vivo applications, PEEK needs surface changes to improve antimicrobial, biologically active, and Osseointegation features. Carbon fiber (CF), hydroxyapatite (HA), titanium dioxide (TiO2), multi-material PEEK composites, and their applications are highlighted. These issues can be addressed to generate synergetic, multifaceted PEEK biomaterials for long-term implantability.

Introduction

1. Impact of Tooth Loss and Dentures:
Loss of natural teeth negatively affects chewing, speech, esthetics, and neuromuscular function. Complete dentures are a common solution, but they can loosen over time due to residual ridge resorption. This leads to discomfort and reduced masticatory efficiency, often impacting nutritional intake.

2. Implant-Supported Overdentures:
Implant-retained overdentures, especially those supported by one or two implants, enhance denture stability. Two-implant systems are generally more effective at minimizing tissue stress compared to single-implant systems. However, research shows no significant difference in success rates between one- and two-implant options.

3. Implant Stability:
Implant stability includes:

• Primary (initial) stability: Mechanical contact between implant and bone.

• Secondary (biological) stability: Gained through bone healing and osseointegration.

4. Biomechanics and Material Considerations:
Titanium alloys (e.g., Ti–6Al–4V) are widely used but have a much higher modulus of elasticity than bone, leading to stress shielding—a condition that reduces bone stimulation and causes bone resorption. Ideal implant materials should match bone's mechanical properties, be lightweight, biocompatible, and degrade slowly if biodegradable.

5. Implant Design to Reduce Stress:
Key strategies to improve biomechanical performance and reduce stress include:

• Matching implant elasticity with bone

• Optimizing shape, length, and diameter

• Using smoother surfaces to minimize plaque accumulation

• Deepening biological width around the implant

6. Thread Design and Geometry:

• Thread Configuration: Tapered threads provide better initial stability than parallel ones.

• Thread Pitch: Finer pitch increases surface area and reduces stress on weak bone.

• Thread Depth: Affects the total surface area and stress distribution; deeper threads increase bone contact.

• Crest Module: A larger crest module reduces stress on crestal bone and strengthens implant stability.

• Apex Design: Apical holes or vents increase surface area but can risk infection or sinus penetration.

7. Implant Shape, Length, and Diameter:

• Shape: Threaded implants are preferred as they convert shear forces to compressive forces.

• Length: Longer implants provide better torque resistance but don’t significantly improve bone stress distribution.

• Diameter: Has a more significant impact on load distribution than length; wider implants improve initial stability.

8. Biocompatible and Biodegradable Materials:

• New Alloys: Molybdenum-based materials and magnesium alloys are being explored for their better mechanical compatibility with bone.

• Magnesium Alloys: Offer good biocompatibility and biodegradability. Historically used in orthopedic applications, they now show potential in dentistry as they promote bone healing and are safely absorbed by the body.

Conclusion

The loading type, material characteristics of the insertion and artificial tooth, implant geometry, surface topology, and the caliber and measure of the surrounding bone, along with the bone–implant interface, influence the stress and strain distributions around osseointegrate dental implants. Many implant concepts and sizes, forms, materials, and surfaces are commercially accessible. Stress study of mechanical interactions between bone and implant and implant failure risk assessment are crucial to endosseous implant effectiveness and dependability. Closed-form stress evaluation is impossible for the coupled bone–implant biomechanical system due to its complicated shape. Thus, numerical methods like finite element analysis can forecast stress and strain distributions in peri-implant regions, examine implant and prosthesis designs, load magnitude and orientation, and bone mechanical properties, and simulate various clinical situations to analyze endosteal dental implants. Swift progress in biodegradable implants and gadgets has shown novel therapeutic pathways for fostering favorable biological reactions. Temperature, pH, and biological cues can induce these biomaterials to dynamically change their characteristics or functions. Synthetic implants called biomaterials can temporarily replace and improve biological tissues. Medical biomaterials are chosen based on their mechanical characteristics, biocompatibility, and weight by mass, biodegradability and physicochemical attributes. Titanium are the predominant materials utilized in orthopedic implants. They exhibit effective healing owing to their robustness and resistance to corrosion. Nonetheless, these materials are non-biodegradable, necessitating further procedures for implant extraction, which restricts growth, temperature sensitivity, and cross-contamination. Bone replacement, dental surgery, and bone stabilization require implants, which may have side effects. Synthetic biodegradable polymer implants reduce procedures and speed healing thanks to medical research. New biomaterials are preferred to improve medicines and life have advanced significantly in the recent decade. Recent advances in specialized drug delivery, regenerative therapies, and tissue engineering have boosted the utilization of biodegradable substances for sophisticated clinical applications. Polydioxanone and poly (L-lactic acid) are utilized in bile duct stents. Biliary stents are made from biodegradable polymers with different biodegradation rates. The selection of biodegradable polymers is contingent upon mechanical integrity, elevated tensile strength, non-toxicity, and a controlled degradation rate. Additionally, chemical properties greatly affect biocompatibility. For sustained physiological immersion, bio implants should be biocompatible with the body. Magnesium, and Zinc are the main bio-absorbable metals. After performing medicinal functions like tissue regeneration, disease detection, and support, these biomaterials corrode and degrade in vivo without harming the host. Biodegradable metals outperform polymeric bone implants and cardiovascular stents in strength and performance. Absorbable implant materials offer large market prospects due to their medicinal benefits. The synthetic biodegradable polyesters are much in studies. These needs complicate biomaterial production. Primary concern is corrosion degradation products released into the environment. These items may injure the body further. For biosafety, deteriorated commodities must be improved. Biocompatible material degradation should match healing kinetics. In cardiovascular applications, healing involves inflammation, granulation, and remodeling. Broken bones recover through inflammation, repair, and remodeling. This paper critically evaluates and discusses biodegradable and bio-absorbable materials for medical applications, their future usage and prospects.

References

[1] Q. Nafeesa and I. Zahid, “Principles and concepts of occlusion in restorative dentistry,” Int. J. Oral Craniofacial Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 001–007, 2023, doi: 10.17352/2455-4634.000059. [2] “Dziedzic , A ., & Puryer , J . S . ( 2019 ). Complete Dentures ? Assessment of the Loose Denture . Dental Update , 46 ( 8 ), 760-767 .,” vol. 46, pp. 760–767, 2019. [3] I. Alfahdawi, “New direct resilient relining material of denture base,” Int. Med. J., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 125–127, 2018. [4] I. Tsolianos, A.-B. Haidich, D. G. Goulis, and E. Kotsiomiti, “The effect of mandibular implant overdentures on masticatory performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Dent. Rev., vol. 3, no. 4, p. 100072, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.dentre.2023.100072. [5] R. Srivastava, R. Bansal, P. K. Dubey, and D. Singh, “A comparative evaluation of masticatory load distribution in different types of prosthesis with varying number of implants: A FEM analysis,” J. Oral Biol. Craniofacial Res., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 284–289, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2024.03.010. [6] A. J. Sharma, R. Nagrath, and M. Lahori, “A comparative evaluation of chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction between conventional denture and implant-supported mandibular overdenture: An in vivo study,” J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 361–372, 2017, doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_76_17. [7] F. Javed, H. Ahmed, R. Crespi, and G. Romanos, “Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation,” Interv. Med. Appl. Sci., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 162–167, 2013, doi: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3. [8] R. S. Liddell, E. Ajami, Y. Li, E. Bajenova, Y. Yang, and J. E. Davies, “The influence of implant design on the kinetics of osseointegration and bone anchorage homeostasis,” Acta Biomater., vol. 121, pp. 514–526, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.11.043. [9] S. Yadav, A. Nath, R. Suresh, A. Kurumathur Vasudevan, B. Balakrishnan, and M. Rajan Peter, “Advances in Implant Surface Technology: A Biological Perspective,” Cureus, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2025, doi: 10.7759/cureus.78264. [10] V. Swami, V. Vijayaraghavan, and V. Swami, “Current trends to measure implant stability,” J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 124–130, 2016, doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.176539. [11] A. Celeste M, “A Brief Historical Perspective on Dental Implants, Their Surface Coatingsand Treatments,” Open Dent. J., vol. 8, pp. 50–55, 2014. [12] M. Saini, “Implant biomaterials: A comprehensive review,” World J. Clin. Cases, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 52, 2015, doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i1.52. [13] M. Gasik, F. Lambert, and M. Bacevic, “Biomechanical properties of bone and mucosa for design and application of dental implants,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 11, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14112845. [14] A. Manea et al., “Principles of biomechanics in oral implantology,” Med. Pharm. Reports, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 14–19, 2019, doi: 10.15386/MPR-1512. [15] H. C. Campista, J. D. M. de Matos, D. A. Queiroz, L. C. Maciel, P. Marcelo Massaroni, and P. Daiane Cristina, Dental anatomy and morphology, no. March. 2023. doi: 10.22533/at.ed.298230903. [16] R. ?eli?, H. Pezo, S. Senzel, and G. ?eli?, “The Relationship between Dental Occlusion and ‘Prosthetic Occlusion’ of Prosthetic Restorations Supported by Natural Teeth and Osseointegrated Dental Implants,” 2023, doi: 10.5772/intechopen.109941. [17] E. Lidia Cr?ciunescu et al., “Dental Anatomy and Morphology of Permanent Teeth,” 2023, doi: 10.5772/intechopen.110223. [18] G. Oxilia, M. Tomasella, and A. Cecere, “Dental Morphology in Restorative Dentistry: A Pilot Study on Morphological Consistency and Variability in Human Upper First Molars,” Dent. J., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2025, doi: 10.3390/dj13030122. [19] A. Szwed-Georgiou et al., “Bioactive Materials for Bone Regeneration: Biomolecules and Delivery Systems,” ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering, vol. 9, no. 9. American Chemical Society, pp. 5222–5254, Sep. 11, 2023. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c00609. [20] F. H. Alzahrani et al., “Letters in High Energy Physics Volume 2024 The Use of Biocompatible Materials in Restorative Dentistry,” vol. 2024, pp. 1920–1933, 2024. [21] W. Wang and K. W. K. Yeung, “Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review,” Bioact. Mater., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 224–247, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007. [22] C. Pandey, D. Rokaya, and B. P. Bhattarai, “Contemporary Concepts in Osseointegration of Dental Implants: A Review,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2022. Hindawi Limited, 2022. doi: 10.1155/2022/6170452. [23] N. Walter, T. Stich, D. Docheva, V. Alt, and M. Rupp, “Evolution of implants and advancements for osseointegration: A narrative review,” Injury, vol. 53, pp. S69–S73, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.05.057. [24] U. Oza, H. Parikh, S. Duseja, and C. Agrawal, “Dental Implant Biomaterials: A Comprehensive Review,” Int. J. Dent. Res., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 87–92, 2020, doi: 10.31254/dentistry.2020.5212. [25] D. Flanagan, “Bite force and dental implant treatment: A short review,” Med. Devices Evid. Res., vol. 10, pp. 141–148, 2017, doi: 10.2147/MDER.S130314. [26] Y. Zhu, F. Zheng, Y. Gong, J. Zhu, D. Yin, and Y. Liu, “Effect of occlusal contact on TMJ loading during occlusion: An in silico study,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 178, no. 174, p. 108725, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108725. [27] M. Wang et al., “Impact of occlusal contact pattern on dental stability and oromandibular system after orthodontic tooth movement in rats,” Sci. Rep., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46668-x. [28] R. Chaithanya, S. Sajjan, and A. V. R. Raju, “A study of change in occlusal contacts and force dynamics after fixed prosthetic treatment and after equilibration-Using Tekscan III,” J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2019, doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_238_18. [29] T. Albrektsson and C. Johansson, “Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration,” Eur. Spine J., vol. 10, pp. S96–S101, 2001, doi: 10.1007/s005860100282 [30] V. John, D. Shin, A. Marlow, and Y. Hamada, “Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Peri-Implantitis: A Report of Three Cases and Review of the Literature,” Case Rep. Dent., vol. 2016, 2016, doi: 10.1155/2016/2491714. [31] K.-Y. Liu, L.-X. Yin, X. Lin, and S.-X. Liang, “Development of Low Elastic Modulus Titanium Alloys as Implant Biomaterials,” Recent Prog. Mater., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–1, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.21926/rpm.2202008. [32] M. Niinomi and M. Nakai, “Titanium-based biomaterials for preventing stress shielding between implant devices and bone,” Int. J. Biomater., vol. 2011, 2011, doi: 10.1155/2011/836587 [33] S. Najeeb, M. S. Zafar, Z. Khurshid, and F. Siddiqui, “Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics,” Journal of Prosthodontic Research, vol. 60, no. 1. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 12–19, Jan. 01, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001. [34] J. Han, J. Zhao, and Z. Shen, “Zirconia ceramics in metal-free implant dentistry,” Adv. Appl. Ceram., vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 138–150, 2017, doi: 10.1080/17436753.2016.1264537. [35] F. D. Al-Shalawi et al., “Biomaterials as Implants in the Orthopedic Field for Regenerative Medicine: Metal versus Synthetic Polymers,” Polymers, vol. 15, no. 12. MDPI, Jun. 01, 2023. doi: 10.3390/polym15122601 [36] K. Moghadasi et al., “A review on biomedical implant materials and the effect of friction stir based techniques on their mechanical and tribological properties,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology, vol. 17. Elsevier Editora Ltda, pp. 1054–1121, Mar. 01, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.01.050. [37] R. Comino-Garayoa, J. C. B. Brinkmann, J. Peláez, C. López-Suárez, J. M. Martínez-González, and M. J. Suárez, “Allergies to titanium dental implants: What do we really know about them? A scoping review,” Biology, vol. 9, no. 11. MDPI AG, pp. 1–15, Nov. 01, 2020. doi: 10.3390/biology9110404. [38] K. Treutler and V. Wesling, “applied sciences The Current State of Research of Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing ( WAAM ): A Review,” Appl. Sci., 2021. [39] L. Shi et al., “The Improved Biological Performance of a Novel Low Elastic Modulus Implant,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 4–9, 2013, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055015. [40] A. Schwitalla and W. D. Müller, “PEEK dental implants: A review of the literature,” J. Oral Implantol., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 743–749, 2013, doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00002. [41] F. Ahmad, S. Nimonkar, V. Belkhode, and P. Nimonkar, “Role of Polyetheretherketone in Prosthodontics: A Literature Review,” Cureus, May 2024, doi: 10.7759/cureus.60552. [42] W. Al-Zyoud, D. Haddadin, S. A. Hasan, H. Jaradat, and O. Kanoun, “Biocompatibility Testing for Implants: A Novel Tool for Selection and Characterization,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 16, no. 21, 2023, doi: 10.3390/ma16216881. [43] K. J. Chun, H. H. Choi, and J. Y. Lee, “Comparison of mechanical property and role between enamel and dentin in the human teeth,” J. Dent. Biomech., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2014, doi: 10.1177/1758736014520809. [44] P. V Singh, A. Reche, P. Paul, and S. Agarwal, “Zirconia Facts and Perspectives for Biomaterials in Dental Implantology,” Cureus, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.7759/cureus.46828. [45] J. Prathapachandran and N. Suresh, “Management of peri-implantitis,” vol. 9, no. 5, 2012. [46] P. Shetty, P. Yadav, M. Tahir, and V. Saini, “Implant Design and Stress Distribution,” Int. J. Oral Implantol. Clin. Res., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 34–39, 2016, doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10012-1151. [47] M. Rismanchian, R. Birang, M. Shahmoradi, H. Talebi, and R. J. Zare, “Developing a new dental implant design and comparing its biomechanical features with four designs.,” Dent. Res. J. (Isfahan)., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 70–5, 2010, [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22013460%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC3177371 [48] T. Tushar, S. Garg, A. Chaudhary, and A. Aggarwal, “Scientific Rationale of Implant Design: A Review Article,” Saudi J. Oral Dent. Res., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 101–106, 2022, doi: 10.36348/sjodr.2022.v07i04.001. [49] A. Mishra, M. Khatri, M. Bansal, Mohd. Rehhan, S. Gaind, and S. Khan, “Changing trends in implant designs: A review,” IP Int. J. Periodontol. Implantol., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 117–123, 2023, doi: 10.18231/j.ijpi.2023.024 [50] A. Jenner, G. P. Sabatini, S. Abou-Ayash, E. Couso-Queiruga, V. Chappuis, and C. Raabe, “Primary implant stability of two implant macro-designs in different alveolar ridge morphologies: an in vitro study,” Int. J. Implant Dent., vol. 11, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40729-025-00605-x. [51] D. Sciences and K. Layout, “ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER IMPLANT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS - A REVIEW,” no. 6, 2020. [52] J. Z. C. Chang et al., “Optimizing dental implant design: Structure, strength, and bone ingrowth,” J. Dent. Sci., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1016–1026, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.11.024. [53] L. Preiss et al., “Bone mechanical behavior around dental implants: Densification and deformation follow-up by in-situ computed tomography,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 167, no. March, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2025.106966. [54] J. Z. C. Chang et al., “Optimizing dental implant design: Structure, strength, and bone ingrowth,” J. Dent. Sci., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1016–1026, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.11.024. [55] H. C. Wu, H. L. Huang, L. J. Fuh, M. T. Tsai, and J. T. Hsu, “Influence of implant length and insertion depth on primary stability of short dental implants: An in vitro study of a novel mandibular artificial bone model,” J. Dent. Sci., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 139–147, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.05.019. [56] M. Xing et al., “All-in-one design of titanium-based dental implant systems for enhanced soft and hard tissue integration,” Biomaterials, vol. 320, no. March, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2025.123251. [57] W. T. Lee, J. Y. Koak, Y. J. Lim, S. K. Kim, H. B. Kwon, and M. J. Kim, “Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. - Part B Appl. Biomater., vol. 100 B, no. 4, pp. 1044–1052, May 2012, doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.32669. [58] T. Stich, F. Alagboso, T. K?enek, T. Ková?ík, V. Alt, and D. Docheva, “Implant-bone-interface: Reviewing the impact of titanium surface modifications on osteogenic processes in vitro and in vivo,” Bioeng. Transl. Med., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2022, doi: 10.1002/btm2.10239. [59] K. Singh, R. Upadhyaya, M. Rayes, S. Bind, A. Poundarik, and A. Tiwari, “A comparative analysis of insertion of dental implants of V, square and trapezoidal screw designs,” Next Res., vol. 2, no. 3, p. 100462, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.nexres.2025.100462. [60] L. P. Raut and R. V Taiwade, “Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing?: A Comprehensive Review and Research Directions,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 4768–4791, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11665-021-05871-5. [61] C. L. Chang, J. J. Chen, and C. S. Chen, “Using optimization approach to design dental implant in three types of bone quality - A finite element analysis,” J. Dent. Sci., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 126–136, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.09.017. [62] F. Sun, L. B. Xu, S. X. Lai, H. Xu, X. C. Li, and Z. Lin, “Effect of platform design of dental implant abutment on loosening and fatigue performance,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 168, no. November 2024, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.109134. [63] H. S. Ryu, C. Namgung, J. H. Lee, and Y. J. Lim, “The influence of thread geometry on implant osseointegration under immediate loading: A literature review,” J. Adv. Prosthodont., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 547–554, 2014, doi: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.6.547. [64] C. Cucinelli, M. S. Pereira, T. Borges, R. Figueiredo, and B. Leitão-Almeida, “The Effect of Increasing Thread Depth on the Initial Stability of Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study,” Surgeries (Switzerland), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 817–825, 2024, doi: 10.3390/surgeries5030065. [65] P. A. da Costa Ward, F. Ward, M. F. R. P. Alves, C. R. Moreira da Silva, L. P. Moreira, and C. dos Santos, “Numerical analysis of the mechanical behavior of ceramic dental implants based on Ce-TZP/Al2O3 composite,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 150, no. June 2023, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.106335. [66] G. A. F. Silva, F. Faot, A. P. da R. Possebon, W. J. da Silva, and A. A. Del Bel Cury, “Effect of macrogeometry and bone type on insertion torque, primary stability, surface topography damage and titanium release of dental implants during surgical insertion into artificial bone,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 119, no. March, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104515. [67] L. S. Colepícolo et al., “Comparative analysis of a conventional cantilever abutment and innovative double abutment in dental implant prosthesis: A finite element analysis study,” Biomed. Eng. Adv., vol. 9, no. December 2024, p. 100151, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.bea.2025.100151. [68] N. G. A. Willemen et al., “From oral formulations to drug-eluting implants: using 3D and 4D printing to develop drug delivery systems and personalized medicine,” Bio-Design and Manufacturing, vol. 5, no. 1. pp. 85–106, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s42242-021-00157-0 [69] K. Yokoyama, T. Ichikawa, H. Murakami, Y. Miyamoto, and K. Asaoka, “Fracture mechanisms of retrieved titanium screw thread in dental implant,” Biomaterials, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 2459–2465, 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00380-5. [70] A. Sahi and S. Gali, “Effect of implant systems in differing bone densities on peri-implant bone stress: A 3 dimensional finite element analysis,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 50, pp. 1300–1307, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.231. [71] M. R. Niroomand, M. Arabbeiki, and G. Rouhi, “Optimization of thread configuration in dental implants through regulating the mechanical stimuli in neighboring bone,” Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., vol. 231, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107376. [72] Q. Zhong, Z. Zhai, Z. Wu, Y. Shen, and F. Qu, “Thread design optimization of a dental implant using explicit dynamics finite element analysis,” pp. 1–19, 2025. [73] C. Erbel, M. W. Laschke, T. Grobecker-Karl, and M. Karl, “Preclinical Performance of a Novel Dental Implant Design Reducing Mechanical Stress in Cortical Bone,” J. Funct. Biomater., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2025, doi: 10.3390/jfb16030102. [74] C. L. Chang, J. J. Chen, and C. S. Chen, “Using optimization approach to design dental implant in three types of bone quality - A finite element analysis,” J. Dent. Sci., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 126–136, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.09.017. [75] A. Abdulrahman, I. Mutlu, Y. Kisioglu, and E. Mohamed, “The Effect of V-Thread and Square Thread Dental Implants on Bone Stresses,” J. Biomimetics, Biomater. Biomed. Eng., vol. 60, no. June, pp. 83–96, 2023, doi: 10.4028/p-3qasy2. [76] S. El Refaiy Fouda, H. Hamed, H. Fattouh, and M. Atef, “Evaluation of Insertion Torque and Initial Stability of Tapered Threaded Implant Depending on Apical Portion Design Solid Implant Versus Core-Vent Versus Double Grooves Design an in Vitro Study,” Egypt. Dent. J., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 145–157, 2022, doi: 10.21608/edj.2021.95307.1787. [77] J. Duyck, H. J. Rønold, H. Van Oosterwyck, I. Naert, J. Vander Sloten, and J. E. Ellingsen, “The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: An animal experimental study,” Clin. Oral Implants Res., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 207–218, 2001, doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003207.x. [78] M. Satpathy et al., “Screening dental implant design parameters for effect on the fatigue limit of reduced-diameter implants,” Dent. Mater., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 444–450, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2025.02.001. [79] A. D. Schwitalla, M. Abou-Emara, T. Spintig, J. Lackmann, and W. D. Müller, “Finite element analysis of the biomechanical effects of PEEK dental implants on the peri-implant bone,” J. Biomech., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–7, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.11.017. [80] A. R. Khan, N. S. Grewal, C. Zhou, K. Yuan, H. J. Zhang, and Z. Jun, “Recent advances in biodegradable metals for implant applications: Exploring in vivo and in vitro responses,” Results Eng., vol. 20, no. October, p. 101526, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101526. [81] M. H. Mobarak et al., “Recent advances of additive manufacturing in implant fabrication – A review,” Appl. Surf. Sci. Adv., vol. 18, no. September, p. 100462, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.apsadv.2023.100462. [82] D. Shukla, Y. S. Negi, J. Sen Uppadhyaya, and V. Kumar, “Synthesis and modification of poly(ether ether ketone) and their properties: A review,” Polym. Rev., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 189–228, 2012, doi: 10.1080/15583724.2012.668151. [83] I. I. Preobrazhenskii and V. I. Putlyaev, “3D Printing of Hydrogel-Based Biocompatible Materials,” Russ. J. Appl. Chem., vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 775–788, 2022, doi: 10.1134/S1070427222060027. [84] M. Hussain, S. M. Khan, M. Shafiq, and N. Abbas, “A review on PLA-based biodegradable materials for biomedical applications,” Giant, vol. 18, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.giant.2024.100261. [85] T. D. Ngo, A. Kashani, G. Imbalzano, K. T. Q. Nguyen, and D. Hui, “Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 143, no. February, pp. 172–196, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012 [86] J. Knaus, D. Schaffarczyk, and H. Cölfen, “On the Future Design of Bio-Inspired Polyetheretherketone Dental Implants,” Macromol. Biosci., vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1002/mabi.201900239. [87] A. Schwitalla and W. D. Müller, “PEEK dental implants: A review of the literature,” Journal of Oral Implantology, vol. 39, no. 6. pp. 743–749, Dec. 2013. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00002. [88] B. ?osiewicz, P. Osak, D. Nowi?ska, and J. Maszybrocka, “Developments in Dental Implant Surface Modification,” Coatings, vol. 15, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.3390/coatings15010109. [89] A. Samran, A. W. Hashem, S. Ali, M. Al-Akhali, S. Wille, and M. Kern, “Influence of post material and ferrule thickness on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars: A laboratory study,” J. Prosthet. Dent., vol. 133, no. 1, pp. 194–201, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.022. [90] F. Suska et al., “Enhancement of CRF-PEEK osseointegration by plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite: A rabbit model,” J. Biomater. Appl., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 234–242, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0885328214521669. [91] A. Pandey and V. Pratap Singh, “Advancement in PEEK Properties for Dental Implant Applications: An Overview,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 2021, [Online]. Available: www.irjet.net [92] G. A. El-Awadi, “Review of effective techniques for surface engineering material modification for a variety of applications,” AIMS Mater. Sci., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 652–692, 2023, doi: 10.3934/MATERSCI.2023037. [93] S. Najeeb, Z. Khurshid, S. Zohaib, and M. S. Zafar, “Bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK are inferior to those of titanium: A systematic review,” Journal of Oral Implantology, vol. 42, no. 6. Allen Press Inc., pp. 512–516, Dec. 01, 2016. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00072. [94] S. Najeeb, Z. Khurshid, J. P. Matinlinna, F. Siddiqui, M. Z. Nassani, and K. Baroudi, “Nanomodified Peek Dental Implants: Bioactive Composites and Surface Modification - A Review,” Int. J. Dent., vol. 2015, 2015, doi: 10.1155/2015/381759. [95] Y. H. Joung, “Development of implantable medical devices: From an engineering perspective,” Int. Neurourol. J., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 98–106, 2013, doi: 10.5213/inj.2013.17.3.98. [96] S. Najeeb, Z. Khurshid, J. P. Matinlinna, F. Siddiqui, M. Z. Nassani, and K. Baroudi, “Nanomodified Peek Dental Implants: Bioactive Composites and Surface Modification - A Review,” International Journal of Dentistry, vol. 2015. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 2015. doi: 10.1155/2015/381759.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Ayushi Pandey, Rajeev Kumar, Anuj Kumar Sharma. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.