ArticleBMC oral health2023
Influence of a new abutment design concept on the biomechanics of peri-implant bone, implant components, and microgap formation: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative design of a novel combined intraosseous-subperiosteal hybrid implant for severe atrophic edentulous dentition: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative finite element analysis of stress distribution of different implant-supported crown and abutment materials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Conventional and Innovative Abutment Designs and Retention Mechanisms on the Biomechanics and Microgap Pattern: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of marginal bone loss around implant restored with platform switched versus platform matched abutments.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Influence of different customized abutment materials on stress distribution of different internal implant-abutment connections: finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis of porous and dense dental implant-supported bridges in healthy and osteoporotic bones.PloS one · 2025Article
- Mechanical Behavior of Five Different Morse Taper Implants and Abutments with Different Conical Internal Connections and Angles: An In Vitro Experimental Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- The Stresses and Deformations in the Abfraction Lesions of the Lower Premolars Studied by the Finite Element Analyses: Case Report and Review of Literature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effect of different implant locations and abutment types on stress and strain distribution under non-axial loading: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Impact of Different Dental Implant Alloys and Coating Materials on the Health of Tissues Surrounding Implants: a Systematic Literature Review.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA new two-piece abutment design consisting of an upper prosthetic component and tissue-level base has been introduced; however, the biomechanical behavior of such a design has not been documented. This study aimed to investigate the effect of a two-piece abutment design on the stress in the implant components and surrounding bone, as well as its influence on microgap formation.
methodsTo simulate the implant models in the mandibular left first molar area, we established nine experimental groups that included three bone qualities (type II, III, and IV) and three implant-abutment designs (internal bone level, tissue level, and a two-piece design). After the screw was preloaded, the maximum occlusal (600 N) and masticatory (225 N) forces were established. Finite element analysis was performed to analyze the maximum and minimum principal stresses on the peri-implant bone; the von Mises stresses in the implants, abutments, bases, and screws, and the microgaps at the implant-abutment, implant-base, and base-abutment interfaces.
resultsFor all three loading methods, the two-piece abutment design and bone-level connection exhibited similarities in the maximum and minimum principal stresses in the peri-implant bone. The von Mises stresses in both screws and bases were greater for the two-piece design than for the other connection types. The smallest microgap was detected in the tissue-level connection; the largest was observed at the implant-base interface in the two-piece design.
conclusionsThe present study found no evidence that the abutment design exerts a significant effect on peri-implant bone stress. However, the mechanical effects associated with the base and screws should be noted when using a two-piece abutment design. The two-piece abutment design also had no advantage in eliminating the microgap.
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.