Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Healthy and Restored Mandibular Molars with Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns Under Vertical and Oblique Loading

The mechanical compatibility between dental restorative materials and the natural tooth structure is a relevant factor for long-term clinical performance. Although zirconia (yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal, Y-TZP) and lithium disilicate are widely used for full-coverage crowns, their biomechanical interaction with the underlying dentin and pulp under functional loading remains insufficiently characterized. This study reports a comparative finite element analysis (FEA) of a mandibular first molar under vertical (200 N, axial) and oblique (200 N, 30°) loading, evaluating three configurations: an intact healthy tooth, a zirconia Y-TZP full-coverage crown, and a lithium disilicate full-coverage crown. The three-dimensional geometry was obtained from a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study of a caries-free mandibular first molar, previously described and verified by the present group, and was analyzed in ANSYS Workbench (Static Structural). Von Mises equivalent stress, maximum principal stress and total deformation were obtained for enamel or restoration, dentin, and pulp in each configuration. Zirconia produced the highest stress concentrations in the coronal restoration (88.4 MPa vertical; 174.5 MPa oblique), exceeding the healthy enamel baseline by 57.6% and 89.7%, respectively. Both restorative materials reduced dentin stress relative to the healthy tooth, consistent with the stress-shielding effect driven by elastic-modulus mismatch. Under oblique loading, the maximum principal stress in healthy enamel reached 61.7 MPa, approaching or exceeding the upper bound of the reported tensile strength range (~10–40 MPa) and identifying oblique loading as the more demanding of the two conditions analyzed. Within the limitations of the present finite element model, lithium disilicate demonstrated a more favorable stress distribution, with dentin stress values closer to the intact-tooth baseline. The model does not include a luting cement layer, a periodontal ligament, the dentin–enamel junction, anisotropic tissue behavior or cyclic loading, and no experimental validation was performed; the results are therefore presented as a controlled numerical comparison between three configurations under the specific conditions simulated, and not as direct clinical selection criteria.