Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38115128›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2023

The effect of frontal trauma on the edentulous mandible with four different interforaminal implant-prosthodontic anchoring configurations. A 3D finite element analysis.

Stefan Krennmair, Michael Malek, Raphael Stehrer, Philip Stähler, Sven Otto, Lukas Postl

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Stefan KrennmairMedical Faculty, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Strasse 69, 4040, Linz, Austria.
Michael MalekDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kepler University Hospital, Johannes Kepler University, Krankenhausstrasse 7a, Linz, Austria.
Raphael StehrerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kepler University Hospital, Johannes Kepler University, Krankenhausstrasse 7a, Linz, Austria.
Philip StählerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Lindwurmstrasse 2a, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Sven OttoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Lindwurmstrasse 2a, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Lukas PostlMedical Faculty, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Strasse 69, 4040, Linz, Austria. lukas.postl@lmu.de.
Kepler Universitätsklinikum · ATLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe present three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) was aimed to assess the biomechanical effects and fracture risks of four different interforaminal implant-prosthodontic anchoring configurations exposed to frontal trauma. MATERIAL AND

methodsA symphyseal frontal trauma of 1 MPa was applied to four dental implant models with different configurations (two unsplinted interforaminal implants [2IF-U], two splinted interforaminal implants [2IF-S], four unsplinted interforaminal implants[ 4IF-U], four splinted interforaminal implants [4IF-S]. By using a 3D-FEA analysis the effective cortical bone stress values were evaluated in four defined regions of interest (ROI) (ROI 1: symphyseal area; ROI 2: preforaminal area; ROI 3: mental foraminal area; and ROI 4: condylar neck) followed by a subsequent intermodel comparison.

resultsIn all models the frontal traumatic force application revealed the highest stress values in the condylar neck region. In both models with a four-implant configuration (4IF-U, 4IF-S), the stress values in the median mandibular body (ROI 1) and in the condylar neck region (ROI 4) were significantly reduced (P <0.01) compared with the two-implant models (2IF-U, 2IF-S). However, in ROI 1, the model with four splinted implants (4IF-S) showed significantly (P < 0.01) reduced stress values compared to the unsplinted model (4IF-U). In addition, all models showed increased stress patterns in the area adjacent to the posterior implants, which is represented by increased stress values for both 2IF-U and 2IF-S in the preforaminal area (ROI 3) and for the four implant-based models (4IF-U, 4IF-S) in the mental foraminal area.

conclusionThe configuration of four splinted interforaminal implants showed the most beneficial distribution of stress pattern representing reduced stress distribution and associated reduced fracture risk in anterior symphysis, condylar neck and preforaminal region.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneProsthodonticsFinite Element AnalysisHumansMandible

Identifiers

PMID38115128
PMCPMC10729383
OpenAlexW4389934832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.