Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38744334›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025

Finite Element Analysis of Anterior Implant-Supported Restorations with Different CAD-CAM Restorative Materials.

Usanee Puengpaiboon, Nichapat Rattanapan, Vamsi Krishna Pasam, Chamaiporn Sukjamsri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Usanee PuengpaiboonDepartment of General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nichapat RattanapanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Srinakharinwirot University, Nakhon Nayok, Thailand.
Vamsi Krishna PasamDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal, Telangana, India.
Chamaiporn SukjamsriDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Srinakharinwirot University, Nakhon Nayok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-1976-9544

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDue to the lack of literature concerning the selection of crown materials for the restoration of anterior teeth, this study aimed to investigate the effects of six distinct computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) crown materials on stress and strain distribution within implant-supported maxillary central incisor restorations, employing finite element analysis (FEA). Furthermore, a comparative analysis was conducted between models that incorporated adjacent natural teeth and those that did not, intending to guide the selection of the most suitable modeling approach. MATERIALS AND

methodsCrown materials, including Lava Ultimate, Enamic, Emax CAD, Suprinity, Celtra Duo, and Cercon xt ML, were the subjects of the investigation. FEA models incorporating Coulomb friction were developed. These models were subjected to an oblique load, simulating the average maximum bite force experienced by anterior teeth. The potential for failure in titanium implant components and the prosthesis crown was evaluated through von Mises and principal stress, respectively. Furthermore, the failure of crestal bone was assessed through principal strain values. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Stress values for each implant component and strain values of the bone were extracted from the models. To assess the impact of the six groups of crown materials, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance and post-hoc comparisons were conducted. Additionally, a statistical comparison between the two groups with Lava Ultimate and Cercon xt ML was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test to determine the difference in the two modeling approaches.

resultsHigher crown material stiffness led to decreased stress in the abutment, fixture, and retaining screw, along with reduced strain in the surrounding bone. However, the decrease in stress and strain values became less significant with increasing crown stiffness. Additionally, the model with adjacent teeth showed significantly lower stress and strain concentrations compared to the model without adjacent teeth.

conclusionCrowns with a high elastic modulus were the optimal choice for anterior teeth restoration. Constructing FEA models with adjacent teeth was highly recommended to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanical behavior of dental implant restorations.

Identifiers

PMID38744334
PMCPMC11750350

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.