M EL- Zawahry, MohamedI EL- Anwar, MohamedS EL-Mofty, MohamedF EL-Ragi, AhmedR Moussa, AmaniS ElGabry, HishamM Shebaita, Amr2020-02-232020-02-232016[1] Lian Z, Guan H, Ivanovski S, Loo Y-C, Johnson NW, Zhang H. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 39: 690-98. [2] Van Staden RC, Guan H, Loo Y-C. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 2006; 9 (4): 257-70. [3] Madrigal C, Ortega R, Meniz C, López-Quiles J. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008; 13 (5): E307-312. [4] Chang P, Lang NP, Giannobile WV. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21 (1): 1-12. [5] Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites E. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009; 38 (4):187-95. [6] Georgescu CE, Mihai A, Didilescu AC, Moraru R, Nimigean V, Nimigean VR, Tanase G. Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology. 2010; 51 (4):713–717. [7] Abrahams JJ. Dental CT Imaging. Radiology 2011; 219: 334-45. [8] El-Anwar MI, El-Zawahry MM, El-Mofty MS. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 2012; 6(3):551-60. [9] El-Anwar MI, El-Mofty MS, Awad AH, El-Sheikh SA, El-Zawahry MM. Egyptian Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery 2014; 5(2): 58-64. [10] Quaresma SE, Cury PR, Sendyk WR, Sendyk C. A. J Oral Implantol 2008; 34(1): 1-6. [11] Lin D, Li Q, Li W, Duckmanton N, Swain M. 2010; 43 (2): 287-93. [12] El-Anwar MI, El-Zawahry MM. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology 2011; 9:77-82. [13] Kohnke P. ANSYS mechanical APDL theory reference. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA. 2013 [14] Hauret L, Hodez C. J Radiol 2009; 90 (5): 604-17. [15] Swain MV, Xue J. Int J Oral Sci. 2009; 1 (4): 177-88. [16] Goldmann T, Ihde S, Kuzelka J, Himmlova L. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2008; 152 (2): 309-16. [17] Behnaz E, Ramin M, Abbasi S, Pouya MA, Mahmood F. Eur J Dent 2015; 9(3): 311-8. [18] Kader MA, El-Sayed SM, El-Zawahry MM, El-Ragi AF, Mostafa MI. The Egyptian Medical Journal of the National Research Centre 2010; 9 (2): 10-15.0975-8585https://t.ly/xREXwMSA Google ScholarAlthough, dental implants are excellent prosthetic treatment option, implant complications do occur. To evaluate the effect of different implant angulations on the displacements and stress distributions on the implants, surrounding bone and its clinical consequences. Twenty-seven implants were placed in twelve patients. Cone Beam CT was used preoperatively to plan implant placement and post operatively to evaluate the actual implants positions. Finite element analysis was achieved using standard implant for a parametric study. A load of 100 N was applied at four different angulations relative to the long axis of the implant. Implant angulation discrepancies ranged from 0.7 - 32.6 degrees with mean value of 9.0 degrees. Axial displacement at loading angles zero-30 was; implants 4.02 - 4.6 micron, spongy bone 2.67 - 4.03 microns, compact bone 2.56 - 4.46 microns. While compressive stress in spongy bone increased from 2.2 to 4.2 MPa, and similar trend was observed for the other stress types in implant, cortical and spongy bone. The increase of stresses was directly proportional to the increase in implant angulations. Also, loading angulations may increase lateral displacement of implant which may explain the bone resorption in more angulated implantsenImplantsFinite Element Analysis.CBCTArticle