ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study.
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finite Element Analysis of Peri-Implant Stress in Maxillary All-on-Four Rehabilitation: Effects of Posterior Implant Angulation and Loading Protocol.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of three full-arch immediate loading protocols in the mandible via finite element analysis: All-on-4, Trefoil, and Five-implant design.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of stresses in the mandible caused by loading of all-on-four and trefoil concepts under different occlusion conditions using finite element analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The primary aim of this study is to analyse the stress distribution between an ALL ON FOUR implant supported prosthesis and the TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis with 3D finite element models. Settings and Design: An in vitro perspective. Materials and Methods: Two mandibular three-dimensional Finite Element Models were constructed by the CREO version 5 software, in which Model A depicts a mandible with ALL ON FOUR implant supported prost hesis and Model B will depict TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis. Model A contains four implants, two anterior straight and posterior tilted implants (30°), a bar and denture containing acrylic teeth. In Model B, it contains three straight implants and a prefabricated compensatory bar with standardised dimensions. To evaluate and compare the stress distribution between the bone and implant interface, one deleterious cantilever load of upto 300 N is applied on the second molar bilaterally and simultaneously. Another full bite biting load of 150 N is given bilaterally and simultaneously on the central groove of premolars and molars. Statistical Analysis Used: The results of the simulations obtained were analysed in terms of Von Mises equivalent stress levels at the bone -implant interface. Results: The results of loading 1 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress was recorded in the anterior implant region of the Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. The results of loading 2 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress were recorded in the anterior implant region Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. Conclusion: This invitro study concludes that All on Four implant supported prosthesis showed better stress distribution when compared to the Trefoil concept.
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.