Aim and background: Understanding the biomechanical behavior of dental prostheses under functional loading is fundamental to prosthodontic success.Finite element analysis (FEA) has evolved as a critical analytical tool, enabling detailed evaluation of stress distribution and load transfer in complex prosthetic systems.This review aims to highlight the role of FEA in analyzing contemporary prosthetic designs and their relevance to clinical decision-making.Methods: Finite element analysis utilizes three-dimensional computational models to simulate clinical conditions by defining material properties, boundary conditions, and load vectors.These models allow quantitative assessment of stress, strain, displacement, and load transfer within prostheses and their supporting structures.Finite element analysis outcomes are often correlated with experimental and clinical data to enhance validity.Results: Finite element analysis provides detailed insight into biomechanical behavior that is difficult to achieve with in vitro mechanical testing alone.It enables parametric analysis, comparison of materials and designs, and evaluation of complex geometries such as implant-supported restorations and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) fabricated components.Studies consistently demonstrate its value in prosthesis design optimization and prediction of biomechanical performance.Conclusion: Finite element analysis is a powerful adjunct to experimental and clinical research in prosthodontics.While it offers high precision and flexibility, the accuracy of results is strongly influenced by modeling assumptions, material property assignment, and mesh quality.Therefore, FEA findings must be interpreted cautiously and validated through experimental and clinical studies.Clinical significance: Finite element analysis assists clinicians and researchers in optimizing prosthesis design, improving treatment planning, and predicting biomechanical outcomes, ultimately contributing to more durable and predictable prosthodontic restorations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeyarathi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: