ArticleHeliyon2024
Numerical investigation of the optimal porosity of titanium foam for dental implants.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of radial clearance on Tresca stress in AlScientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This paper aims to indicate numerically the accurate porosity used for dental implants, following the emphasis on the preference for titanium foam on pure titanium implants. A 3D-optimized numerical model is created to demonstrate the detailed differences between models. Method: A 3D finite element model was generated using Abaqus for titanium and titanium foam implants with different porosities (50,60,62.5,70, and 80%) fixed in cortical and cancellous bone. The mechanical data for titanium foam is extracted from published literature. We evaluate an artificial intelligent equation for the stress-strain response of titanium foam with various porosities to describe their variations. Results: To evaluate the stress-strain variations for different porosities, exponential artificial intelligence provides high accuracy (>0.99). The numerical results show that titanium foam implants appear to transfer more loads to the bordering bones due to their lower stiffness and higher energy absorption, which can help reduce stress shielding problems. In surrounding bones, the maximum VM stress occurs at the neck region from 5.42 MPa for pure titanium to 21.53 MPa for titanium foam with 80% porosity. Additionally, a porosity of 62.5% appears to be the most suitable since Young's modulus for this porosity (13.82 GPa) is close to the cortical bone's modulus (14.5 GPa). This suitability is shown in FEA by the similarity in stress level between pure titanium and the corresponding porosity. Overall, titanium foam implants appear to be a promising option for improving the effectiveness and longevity of bone implants in surgical dentistry. Conclusion: Systematic numerical studies on titanium foam dental implants with different porosities. Analysis of the FE results shows that titanium foam with a porosity of 62.5% is more beneficial for use in dental implants.
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.