SynthesisBioMed research international2021
Biomechanical Stress in Obturator Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Finite Element Studies.
Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Suitability and Trueness of the Removable Partial Denture Framework Fabricating by Polyether Ether Ketone with CAD-CAM Technology.Polymers · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of biomechanical response between zygomatic implant and Facco technique through the three-dimensional finite element method.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
- Biomechanics in Removable Partial Dentures: A Literature Review of FEA-Based Studies.BioMed research international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis systematic review is aimed at investigating the biomechanical stress that develops in the maxillofacial prostheses (MFP) and supporting structures and methods to optimize it.
results87 articles were screened to get an update on the desired information. 74 were excluded based on a complete screening, and finally, 13 articles were recruited for complete reviewing.
conclusionUsing ZI in the defective side of the dentulous maxillary defect and defective and nondefective side of the edentulous maxillary defect was found more advantageous, in terms of compression and tensile stress and retention, when compared with DI and free flap reconstruction.
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.