ArticleBMC oral health2024
A finite element analysis study on different angle correction designs for inclined implants in All-On-Four protocol.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Connection Geometry and Cantilever Length on the Mechanical Behavior of Ti6Al4V and PEEK Bar-Supported Implant Prostheses with Angled Abutments.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Posterior implant angulation without cantilever reduction in mandibular All-on-4: a controlled finite element analysis of stress transfer and implant macrodesign effects.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Three-dimensional finite element analysis of tooth and implant-supported telescopic prosthesis using zirconia, PEKK, and cobalt chromium crowns.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- 3D finite element analysis of removable partial denture with lingual bar major connector constructed with cobalt chromium, PEEK, PEKK, and BioHPP.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Enhanced implant longevity: Finite element optimization of all-on-four implant designs to minimize jawbone stresses.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Millisecond Laser Oblique Hole Processing of Alumina Ceramics.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomechanical comparison of various implant inclinations and abutment types in a bendable implant system.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of occlusal stresses on bone around natural teeth, platform matched and switched implants abutments: a finite element study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- OT Bridge prosthetic system with different number of screws in all on six maxillary prosthesis: finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) and Bone Stresses for Implant Inclinations of 0°, 15°, and 20°.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mechanical performance of narrow dental implants with varying lengths and angled abutments.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis of maxillary posterior three unit bridge supported misial straight implant and distal tilted implant.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Effect of implant tilt and trans-mucosal abutment angulation as influencing stress pattern: An FEA study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to investigate, through finite element analysis (FEA), the biomechanical behavior of the built-in angle corrected dental implant versus implant with angled multiunit abutment used in All-On-Four treatment protocol.
methodsTwo (3D) finite element models of a simplified edentulous mandible were constructed with two different posterior implant designs based on the All-On-Four protocol. Four implants were placed in each model, the two anterior implants were positioned vertically at the lateral incisor/canine sites. Depending on the implant fixture design in posterior area, there are two models created; Model I; the mandible was rehabilitated with four co-axis (4 mm in diameter × 15 mm in length) implants with distally built-in angle corrected implants (24-degree angle correction) .While Model II, the mandible was rehabilitated with four conventional (4 mm in diameter × 14 mm in length) implants with a distally inclined posterior implants (25 degree) and angled multiunit abutments. CAD software (Solidworks© 2017; Dassault Systems Solidworks Corp) was used to model the desired geometry. Axial and inclined Loads were applied on the two models. A Finite element analysis study was done using an efficient software ANSYS© with specified materials. The resultant equivalent Von-Misses stresses (VMS), maximum principal stresses and deformation analysis were calculated for each part (implants and prosthetic components).
resultsWhen applying axial and non-axial forces, model II (angled multiunit model) showed higher deformation on the level of Ti mesh about 13.286 μm and higher VMS 246.68 MPa than model I (angle corrected implant). Model I exhibited higher maximum stresses 107.83 MPa than Model II 94.988 MPa but the difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionWithin the limitation of the FEA study, although angle correcting implant design is showing higher values in maximum principle stresses compared with angled multiunit abutments, model deformation and resultant VMS increased with angled multiunit abutments. The angle correcting designs at implant level have more promising results in terms of deformation and VMS distribution than angle correction at abutment level.
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.