ArticlePloS one2021
Comparative analysis of stress distribution in one-piece and two-piece implants with narrow and extra-narrow diameters: A finite element study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rehabilitation in Cases of Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis Using Zirconia Implant and Abutment: Finite Element Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Pooled it
- Stress distribution in angulated bendable one-piece and two-piece implant-supported single crowns in the posterior maxilla: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- [Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the cantilever fixed bridge restoration for mandibular central incisors supported by narrow-diameter implants].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Article
- Effect of internal connection parameters on the fatigue limit of narrow-diameter implants - a finite element study.Journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Stress Assessment of Abutment-Free and Three Implant-Abutment Connections Utilizing Various Abutment Materials: A 3D Finite Element Study of Static and Cyclic Static Loading Conditions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Biomechanical Impact of Cementation Technique Variations on Femoral Stem Stability: An In Vitro Polyurethane Model Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Non-Linear Biomechanical Evaluation and Comparison in the Assessment of Three Different Piece Dental Implant Systems for the Molar Region: A Finite Element Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Effect of different restorative design and materials on stress distribution in cracked teeth: a finite element analysis study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis of alveolar bones with compromised quality supporting a 4-unit implant bridge; a possible association with implant-related sequestration (IRS).Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Structural and torque changes in implant components of different diameters subjected to mechanical fatigue.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2024Article
- Article
- A Finite Element Analysis of Stress Allocation around Three Types of Abutment-Implant Interfaces.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Effects of abutment screw preload and preload simulation techniques on dental implant lifetime.JADA foundational science · 2022Article
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
objectivesThe aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress distribution on three implant models with narrow and extra-narrow diameters using the finite element method (FEA). MATERIALS AND
methodsDental implants of extra-narrow diameter of 2.5 mm for a one-piece implant (group G1), a narrow diameter of 3.0 mm for a one-piece implant (group G2) and a narrow diameter of 3.5 mm for a two-piece implant with a Morse taper connection (group G3). A three-dimensional model was designed with cortical and cancellous bone, a crown and an implant/abutment set of each group. Axial and angled (30°) loads of 150 N was applied. The equivalent von Mises stress was used for the implants and peri-implant bone plus the Mohr-Coulomb analysis to confirm the data of the peri-implant bone.
resultsIn the axial load, the maximum stress value of the cortical bone for the group G1 was 22.35% higher than that the group G2 and 321.23% than the group G3. Whereas in angled load, the groups G1 and G2 showing a similar value (# 3.5%) and a highest difference for the group G3 (391.8%). In the implant structure, the group G1 showed a value of 2188MPa, 93.6% higher than the limit.
conclusionsThe results of this study show that the extra-narrow one-piece implant should be used with great caution, especially in areas of non-axial loads, whereas the one- and two-piece narrow-diameter implants show adequate behavior in both directions of the applied load.
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.