ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2022
Biomechanical Stress Analysis of Platform Switch Implants of Varying Diameters on Different Densities of Bone.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2022. 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.
- RANKL, OPG, and CTS-K Release in Bone Response to Immediate Nonfunctional Loading of a Single Implant in Mandibular Molar Sites During Osseointegration Establishment.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Trial
- Thread design optimization of a dental implant using explicit dynamics finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Stress distribution on platform switched dental implant technique with different bone type.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the strain developed in D2 and D3 types of bones on vertical loading by platform switch implants of different diameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsImplants of diameters 3.25 mm, 4.2 mm, and 5.0 mm and of length 11.5 mm were taken and placed each on D2 and D3 bone models. Strain gauges were attached on the buccal and the lingual sides on each of these samples, and a vertical load of 190N was placed on the samples. The strain was recorded using a data logger. The data obtained was analysed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test.
resultsIn D2 and D3 bone models, 3.25 mm significantly showed greater bone strain values. The buccal side strain was higher irrespective of the implant diameter and density of bone.
conclusionWithin the limitations of the study, it may be concluded that the narrow diameter implant produces greater strain than 4.2 and 5.0 mm diameter implants, respectively. The buccal side consistently produced higher bone strain values.
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.