Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35147791›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2022

Biomechanical finite element analysis of short-implant-supported, 3-unit, fixed CAD/CAM prostheses in the posterior mandible.

Lana Zupancic Cepic, Martin Frank, Andreas Reisinger, Dieter Pahr, Werner Zechner, Andreas Schedle

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lana Zupancic CepicDepartment of Prosthodontics, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Martin FrankInstitute of Lightweight Design and Structural Biomechanics, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas ReisingerDivision Biomechanics, Department of Anatomy and Biomechanics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria.
Dieter PahrDivision Biomechanics, Department of Anatomy and Biomechanics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria.
Werner ZechnerDepartment of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas SchedleCompetence Centre Dental Materials, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. andreas.schedle@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0003-1205-4359
Medical University of Vienna · ATKarl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences · ATTU Wien · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the biomechanical effects of different prosthetic/implant configurations and load directions on 3-unit fixed prostheses supported by short dental implants in the posterior mandible using validated 3-D finite element (FE) models.

methodsModels represented an atrophic mandible, missing the 2nd premolar, 1st and 2nd molars, and rehabilitated with either two short implants (implant length-IL = 8 mm and 4 mm) supporting a 3-unit dental bridge or three short implants (IL = 8 mm, 6 mm and 4 mm) supporting zirconia prosthesis in splinted or single crowns design. Load simulations were performed in ABAQUS (Dassault Systèmes, France) under axial and oblique (30°) force of 100 N to assess the global stiffness and forces within the implant prosthesis. Local stresses within implant/prosthesis system and strain energy density (SED) within surrounding bone were determined and compared between configurations.

resultsThe global stiffness was around 1.5 times higher in splinted configurations vs. single crowns, whereby off-axis loading lead to a decrease of 39%. Splinted prostheses exhibited a better stress distribution than single crowns. Local stresses were larger and distributed over a larger area under oblique loads compared to axial load direction. The forces on each implant in the 2-implant-splinted configurations increased by 25% compared to splinted crowns on 3 implants. Loading of un-splinted configurations resulted in increased local SED magnitude.

conclusionSplinting of adjacent short implants in posterior mandible by the prosthetic restoration has a profound effect on the magnitude and distribution of the local stress peaks in peri-implant regions. Replacing each missing tooth with an implant is recommended, whenever bone supply and costs permit.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsDental ImplantsComputer-Aided DesignFinite Element AnalysisMandibleDental ImplantsBiomechanicsFinite element analysisFixed implant-supported prosthesesFunctional loadProsthetic design parametersShort dental implants

Identifiers

PMID35147791
PMCPMC8837704
OpenAlexW4211018708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.