ArticleHeliyon2024
Effect of crown retention systems and loading direction on the stress magnitude of posterior implant-supported restorations: A 3D-FEA.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative numerical finite element analysis of tooth-implant- versus implant-implant-supported three-unit fixed prostheses under oblique loading.Odontology · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of margin designs and loading conditions on the stress distribution of endocrowns: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effect of four retention systems for implant-supported posterior crowns under compressive loading using three-dimensional finite element analysis. A morse-taper dental implant (4.1 × 10 mm) was designed with Computer Aided Design software based on non-uniform rational B-spline surfaces. According to International Organization for Standardization 14,801:2016, the implant was positioned at 3 mm above the crestal level. Then four models were designed with different crown retention systems: screw-retained (A), cement-retained (B), lateral-screw-retained (C), and modified lateral-screw-retained (D). The models were imported to the analysis software and mesh was generated based on the coincident nodes between the juxtaposed lines. For the boundary conditions, two loads (600 N) were applied (axial to the implant fixture and oblique at 30°) totaling 8 conditions according to retention design and loading. The von-Mises stress analysis showed that different retention systems modify the stress magnitude in the implant-supported posterior crown. There is a similar stress pattern in the implant threads. However, models C and D presented higher stress concentrations in the crown margin in comparison with A and B. The oblique loading highly increased the stress magnitude for all models. In the simulated conditions, part of the stress was concentrated at the lateral screw under axial loading for model C and oblique loading for model D. The results indicate a possible new failure origin for crown retained using lateral screws in comparison to conventional cement-retained or screw-retained systems.
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.