Whether stress-absorbing elements are functional in an implant system has been an issue of interest in oral implantology. The unique feature of the IMZ implant system is the planned imitation of the stress-distributing function of the structural unit of the tooth, periodontium, and alveolar bone through the use of an intramobile element(IME). The purpose of this study was to compare the difference in the displacement and the stress distibutions of IMZ implant with a polyoxymethylene(POM) or a titanium IME under static load. Two dimensional finite element analysis(FEA) was applied for this study and two finite element models were created. PATRAN program(DPA Co.,USA), a software for FEA, and SUN-SPARC2GX(SUN Co., USA), a workstation computer, were used. $1Kg/mm^2$ of static load was loaded individually on each three point of crown of implant prosthesis ; central fossa(load 1), mesial cusp tip(load 2), distal cusp tip(load 3), The displacements of X- and Y-axis and total displacement were measured at mesial and distal cusp tips, mesial and distal points between crown and IME, and implant apex. The von Mises stress was measured at mesial and distal points between crown and IME, mesial and distal points between IME and TIE, mesial and distal alveolar crest, the mesial and distal midpoints of implant, and implant apex. The difference in resultant values were compared and evaluated statistically using paired t-test. The results were as follows : 1. Under the load 1, all the displacement of implant with titanium IME at 5 measuring points was larger than that of with POM IME except total and Y-axis displacement at implant apex. And the differences in stress distributions with POM and titanium were varied. 2. Under the load 2, all the displacement of implant with titanium IME at 5 measuring points was larger than that of with POM IME except X-axis displacement at distal cusp tip. And the differences in stress distributions were varied. 3. Under the load 3, all the displacement of implant with titanium IME at 5 measuring points was larger than that of with POM IME except Y-axis displacement at mesial cusp tip. And the differences in stress distributions were varied. 4. For the displacement, there was significant difference statistically only in total displacement (P<0.1), but was no significant difference in X- and Y-axis displacement(P>0.1). For the stress, there was no significant difference among the compared values.