Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38310260›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Comparison of stress distribution around all-on-four implants of different angulations and zygoma implants: a 7-model finite element analysis.

Hüseyin Alican Tezerişener, Öznur Özalp, Mehmet Ali Altay, Alper Sindel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Research progress on three-dimensional finite element analysis for fixed implant restoration of edentulous jaw].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Assessment of different treatment alternatives for patients with total maxillectomy.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hüseyin Alican TezerişenerPrivate Practice, Antalya, Turkey.
Öznur ÖzalpDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Campus, Dumlupinar Boulevard, Antalya, 07058, Turkey.
Mehmet Ali AltayDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Campus, Dumlupinar Boulevard, Antalya, 07058, Turkey.
Alper SindelDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Campus, Dumlupinar Boulevard, Antalya, 07058, Turkey. dtalpersindel@gmail.com.

Funding

Akdeniz Üniversitesi TDH-2018-3070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, zygomatic implants and the all-on-four treatment concept have been increasingly preferred for rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. However, debate continues regarding the optimal configuration and angulation of the implants. The aim of this study was to analyze the biomechanical stress in implants and peri-implant bone in an edentulous maxilla with zygomatic implants and the all-on-four concept, using multiple implant configurations.

methodsA total of 7 models consisting different combinations of 4-tilted dental implants and zygomatic implants were included in the study. In each model, a total of 200 N perpendicular to the posterior teeth and 50 N with 45° to the lateral tooth were applied. A finite element analysis was performed for determination of stress distribution on implants and peri-implant bone for each model.

resultsHigher stress values were observed in both cortical and trabecular bone around the 45°-tilted posterior implants in all-on-four models when compared to zygomatic implants. In cortical bone, the highest stress was established in an all-on-four model including 45°-tilted posterior implant with 4,346 megapascal (MPa), while the lowest stress was determined in the model including anterior dental implant combined with zygomatic implants with 0.817 MPa. In trabecular bone, the highest stress was determined in an all-on-four model including 30°-tilted posterior implant with 0.872 MPa while the lowest stress was observed in quad-zygoma model with 0.119 MPa. Regarding von Mises values, the highest stress among anterior implants was observed in an all-on-four model including 17° buccally tilted anterior implant with 38.141 MPa, while the lowest was in the including anterior dental implant combined with zygomatic implants with 20,446 MPa. Among posterior implants, the highest von Mises value was observed in the all-on-four model including 30°-tilted posterior implant with 97.002 MPa and the lowest stress was in quad zygoma model with 35.802 MPa.

conclusionsWithin the limits of the present study, the use of zygoma implants may provide benefit in decreasing biomechanical stress around both dental and zygoma implants. Regarding the all-on-four concept, a 17° buccal angulation of anterior implants may not cause a significant stress increase while tilting the posterior implant from 30° to 45° may cause an increase in the stress around these implants.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Prosthesis DesignDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedDental Stress AnalysisFinite Element AnalysisHumansMaxillaStress, MechanicalZygomaDental ImplantsAll on fourAtrophic maxillaeFinite element analysisStress distributionTilted dental implantZygomatic implant

Identifiers

PMID38310260
PMCPMC10837953

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.