ArticleInternational journal of medical sciences2023
Custom-made Subperiosteal Implants: A Finite Element Analysis on Monoblock and Dual Implant Systems in Atrophic Maxilla.
Article in International journal of medical sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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
- Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across Indications, from Established Full-Arch Use to Emerging Single-Tooth and Oncologic Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Rehabilitation of the Severely Atrophic Maxilla with Subperiosteal Implants: A Biomechanical and Decision Analysis of Material and Configuration Choices.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The "Zero-Gap Protocol" for the Rehabilitation of Severe Jaw Atrophy via the Digital Workflow: A Preliminary Clinical Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Biomechanical comparison of titanium and Y-TZP subperiosteal implants in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparison of biomechanical performance of custom implants with different designs under functional load: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effect of implant thickness and screw diameter on CFR-PEEK subperiosteal implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Novel Ti6Al4V Surface Treatment for Subperiosteal Dental Implants (Part II): Matrix Deposition and Osteogenic Markers.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Customized 3D-Printed Subperiosteal Titanium Implants for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Atrophic Maxilla in Geriatric Patients: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Influence of the design of modern subperiosteal multivectorial anchored Implants on success and survival in complex patient cases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of prosthetic framework materials in subperiosteal implants: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Patient-specific implants for intraoral and maxillofacial reconstruction: a scoping review on customization and fabrication methods.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Review
- New Subperiosteal Dental Implant Design with Finite Element Analysis and Mechanical Validation: A Design Validation Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Functionally Loaded Subperiosteal Implants Evaluated on a Realistic Model Reproducing Severe Atrophic Jaws.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- Comparison of Load Distribution in Subperiosteal Implants and Mini Plates in Orthognathic Surgery.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of implant options for unilateral maxillary defects: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Innovative Categorization and Operative Management of Auditory Ossicle Disruption Following Trauma: Therapeutic Efficacy and Interventional Paradigms.International journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate and compare the stress distribution, displacement, and bone loading of monoblock and dual custom-made subperiosteal implant systems in atrophic maxilla using finite element analysis (FEA). A total of 11 patients with insufficient bone tissue for conventional implant treatment were included in the study. Customized subperiosteal implant designs were generated using the 3D average models obtained from patients' computed tomography (CT) scans. Two different models were produced: a monoblock that covered the entire maxillary bone and a dual implant system where two mirror-imaged implants covered the left and right halves of the maxillary bone separately. We have calculated residual stress values formed on the implant models and jaw bone models separately. In addition, the highest displacement values formed on the implants and the highest stress values formed on abutment parts have also been observed in this study. Results showed that the stresses formed on implants that are under the mastication forces were significantly lower than the yield strength of the selected material, indicating that plastic deformation would not occur under static load. The dual implant geometry demonstrated a substantial reduction in stress compared to the monoblock structure. The highest von Mises stress values for the monoblock implants ranged from 131 MPa to 206 MPa, while those for the dual structure ranged from 124 MPa to 178 MPa. The highest residual stress values on the upper jawbone were observed in the M6 implant model, and the lowest was seen in the M1 and M3 models at 12 MPa. Displacement values under static load showed that loads on the implant would be below 0.21 mm. In conclusion, custom subperiosteal implants are a viable treatment option for patients with insufficient bone tissue for conventional implants. Dual implant systems were found to have lower stress and displacement values compared to monoblock structures, indicating a potential advantage in clinical use. However, mono implants may have benefits in cases of immediate teeth loading due to their ability to absorb and distribute occlusal forces better.
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.