ArticleBMC oral health2023
Evaluation of two treatment concepts of four implants supporting fixed prosthesis in an atrophic maxilla: 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the atrophic mandible rehabilitated with fixed total prosthesis on mono or bicortical implants.Brazilian dental journal · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, oblique placement of long implants or the use of short implants to circumvent the maxillary sinus area and provide support for fixed prostheses are viable alternatives. The purpose of this study was to compare these two treatment concepts and ascertain which one exhibits superior biomechanical characteristics.
methodsTwo different treatment concept models were constructed. The first one, LT4I, consisting of two mesial vertical implants positioned in lateral incisor regions and two distal tilted implants (45°) situated in second premolar regions of the maxilla. The second model, VS4I, includes two mesial vertical implants in lateral incisor regions and two vertically positioned short implants in second premolar regions. Numerical simulations were conducted under three loading types: firstly, oblique forces upon the molars; secondly, vertical forces upon the molars; thirdly, oblique forces upon the incisors. The maximum principal stress (σ
resultsUnder oblique loading on the molar, higher stress values in the bone were observed in LT4I group. Under vertical loading on molar, higher stress values in the bone were also observed in LT4I group. Furthermore, little difference was found between the two groups under oblique loading on the incisor.
conclusionBoth treatment concepts can be applicable for edentulous individuals with moderate atrophic maxilla. Compared to tilted implants, short implants can transmit less occlusal force to the supporting tissues.
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.