Mechanobiological Response of Peri-Implant Bone to Variations in Inter-Implant Distance: A Finite Element Analysis of Conometric Implants at Crestal and Subcrestal Positions.

Inter-implant distance (IID) is crucial for peri-implant bone preservation and long-term implant success. Traditionally, a minimum IID of 3 mm is recommended to limit marginal bone loss, although the biomechanical effect of smaller distances remains debated and may depend on multiple biological, prosthetic, and surgical factors. This study uses finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the effect of IID on stress distribution in peri-implant bones of D3 and D4 quality, considering crestal versus subcrestal implant placement, and interpreting results within Frost's mechanostat theory. Implants with an internal conometric connection were modeled within simulated D3 and D4 mandibular bone blocks. IID values of 3 mm, 1.5 mm, and 1 mm were analyzed under masticatory load. Von Mises stresses in cortical and trabecular bone were compared against biomechanical thresholds (2 MPa disuse and 20 MPa remodeling limit). Results: Cortical stress increased with decreasing IID, more pronounced in crestal placement. In D3 bone, maximum cortical stress rose from 7.2 MPa (3 mm IID) to 16.5 MPa (1 mm IID) under crestal placement, while remaining within the mechanostat-based thresholds adopted in the present stress-interpretation framework. In D4 bone, cortical stress approached 20 MPa at 1 mm IID under crestal placement, indicating a less favorable mechanical condition within the interpretive framework adopted. Subcrestal placement reduced cortical stresses in both bone qualities. Trabecular stress remained stable in D3 (~1.7-8 MPa) and increased moderately in D4 (~up to 13 MPa). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this preclinical finite element study, decreasing inter-implant distance was associated with increased cortical stress, while subcrestal placement was associated with lower cortical stress than crestal placement. These findings should be interpreted only as comparative computational results, and no direct clinical conclusion can be drawn regarding the acceptability of a 1 mm inter-implant distance.