Evaluates stress distribution in mandibular models under varying gonial angles, suggesting biomechanical implications.
Aim The mandibular angle is affected by morphological and functional factors. This study aimed to evaluate the stress distribution and susceptibility to fracture in the angle region under two different traumatic loading conditions in mandibular models with different gonial angles using finite element analysis. Materials and methods A mandible model with three different gonial angles (115°, 125°, and 135°) was created based on a standard reference representing human anatomy. In the linear static analysis, a traumatic force of 2000 N was applied to a 1 cm diameter circular contact area in two different loading scenarios: (i) frontally, perpendicular to the coronal plane, and to the symphysis region, and (ii) laterally to the angulus region. The finite element analysis was performed on a workstation with an Intel ® Xeon™ 2.4 GHz processor and 48 GB of RAM. Mimics was used for segmentation, HyperMesh for mesh generation, Abaqus/Standard for analysis, and Abaqus/CAE for visualization of the results. Results In both loading scenarios, as the gonial angle increased (115° → 125° → 135°), the stress concentration in the mandibular angulus region decreased. The highest stress values were found in the 115° model, whereas the lowest values were found in the 135° model. When the principal stress and Von Mises analyses were evaluated together, a more pronounced stress concentration was observed in the angulus region in models with a narrower gonial angle. Conclusion Within the limitations of this finite element analysis study, lower gonial angle models demonstrated higher stress concentrations in the mandibular angulus region under the simulated loading conditions. These findings suggest a potential biomechanical tendency toward increased stress localization rather than a direct prediction of clinical fracture risk. Further experimental and clinical studies are required to validate these observations and determine their clinical significance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kızılseki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: