ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2019
Effects of cementless fixation of implant prosthesis: A finite element study.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Finite Element Analysis of Anterior Implant-Supported Restorations with Different CAD-CAM Restorative Materials.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Bioengineering Tools Applied to Dentistry: Validation Methods for In Vitro and In Silico Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2022Review
- Comparative finite element analysis of mandibular posterior single zirconia and titanium implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2021Article
- Biomechanical stress and microgap analysis of bone-level and tissue-level implant abutment structure according to the five different directions of occlusal loads.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2020Article
- A novel retentive type of dental implant prosthesis: marginal fitness of the cementless double crown type implant prosthesis evaluated by bacterial penetration and viability.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA novel retentive type of implant prosthesis that does not require the use of cement or screw holes has been introduced; however, there are few reports examining the biomechanical aspects of this novel implant. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical features of cementless fixation (CLF) implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe test groups of three variations of CLF implant prostheses and a control group of conventional cement-retained (CR) prosthesis were designed three-dimensionally for finite element analysis. The test groups were divided according to the abutment shape and the relining strategy on the inner surface of the implant crown as follows; resin-air hole-full (RAF), resin-air hole (RA), and resin-no air hole (RNA). The von Mises stress and principal stress were used to evaluate the stress values and distributions of the implant components. Contact open values were calculated to analyze the gap formation of the contact surfaces at the abutment-resin and abutment-implant interfaces. The micro-strain values were evaluated for the surrounding bone.
resultsValues reflecting the maximum stress on the abutment were as follows (in MPa): RAF, 25.6; RA, 23.4; RNA, 20.0; and CR, 15.8. The value of gap formation was measured from 0.88 to 1.19 µm at the abutmentresin interface and 24.4 to 24.7 µm at the abutment-implant interface. The strain distribution was similar in all cases.
conclusionCLF had no disadvantages in terms of the biomechanical features compared with conventional CR implant prosthesis and could be successfully applied for implant prosthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.