# Numerical-Experimental Analysis to Optimize the Geometry of a Prosthetic Abtment
## 6 Discussions on Fem vs. Experimental Tests  
The proposed study does not find a similar approach in the literature, and the studies on the analysis of the geometry before and the stresses afterwards represent a new perspective in the analysis of the problem. Clinical approaches to the various proposed solutions \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Compressive Stress (MPa)**} \\ \hline
**FEA** & **Fujifilm** \\ \hline
7.98 & \(-9.0\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Table of comparison of FEA vs. Fujifilm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Loads**}} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Displacements and Standard Deviations [mm]**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Sensors**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**[kN]** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **MV** & **SD** & **MV** & **SD** & **MV** & **SD** & **MV** & **SD** & **MV** & **SD** \\ \hline
0 & 0 & - & 0 & - & 0 & - & 0 & - & 0 & - \\ \hline
10 & 0.026 & 0.005 & \(-0.021\) & 0.004 & \(-0.088\) & 0.012 & 0.046 & 0.007 & \(-0.001\) & -\({}^{*}\) \\ \hline
20 & 0.051 & 0.008 & \(-0.041\) & 0.007 & \(-0.175\) & 0.017 & 0.091 & 0.010 & \(-0.003 are frequently found in the literature. The present work aims to carry out a preliminary analysis of these conditions and then proceed to the analysis of clinical cases that are not the subject of this work and that represent the authors' next step for the present research. This aspect represents, at the same time, the original innovation of the research but also the limit due to the lack of clinical cases analyzed. This study provides clinically relevant insights into the structural behavior of prosthetic abutments by examining the response of each wall to varied force directions (horizontal, axial, and vertical). Through this analysis, the design implications for optimizing abutment stability are emphasized, particularly in the context of minimizing dislodgement risks under functional masticatory loads. The differentiated responses of the axial, cusp, and lateral walls suggest specific design adjustments that could significantly enhance load distribution and reduce rotational forces on the crown-abutment interface. Clinically, these insights offer a foundation for constructing abutments that effectively manage force vectors, potentially decreasing incidences of prosthetic failure and improving the long-term stability and retention of fixed dental prostheses. Such considerations underscore the importance of precise geometric design in clinical practice, where each structural element of the abutment contributes to the overall mechanical integrity and longevity of the restoration. This section presents a comprehensive comparison between the Finite Element Method (FEM) simulations and the experimental results. The primary objective was to optimize the abutment geometry to reduce tensile stresses on the cement--identified as the most critical point in prosthetic failures. The key results from Tables 1 and 2 highlight the following:  
* The **maximum axial resistance** was obtained when the abutment configuration satisfied the condition MD \(<\) VL, combined with an abutment height of 5 mm and an angle \(\alpha=12^{\circ}\). Under this configuration, the force direction remained within the abutment perimeter, preventing dislodging rotation and maximizing structural integrity. * The **optimal cusp resistance area** was achieved with a \(\gamma\) angle of \(20^{\circ}\), which also ensured a structural safety margin by maintaining an HR ratio below 0.25. The FEM simulations confirmed that the stresses applied to the adhesive cements were well within acceptable limits, indicating strong compatibility with the proposed configuration. Furthermore, comparisons with similar abutment geometries found in the literature [4; 8; 13; 14; 18] underscore the novelty and efficacy of the double algorithm developed in this study.