ArticleBMC oral health2024
Influence of prosthetic index structures and implant materials on stress distribution in implant restorations: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanics of different thread designs of dental implants assisting unilateral free end mandibular partial dentures.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMechanical complications affect the stability of implant restorations and are a key concern for clinicians, especially with the frequent introduction of new implant designs featuring various structures and materials. This study evaluated the effect of different prosthetic index structure types and implant materials on the stress distribution of implant restorations using both in silico and in vitro methods.
methodsFour finite element analysis (FEA) models of implant restorations were created, incorporating two prosthetic index structures (cross-fit (CF) and torc-fit (TF)) and two implant materials (titanium and titanium-zirconium). A static load was applied to each group. An in vitro study using digital image correlation (DIC) with a research scenario identical to that of the FEA was conducted for validation. The primary strain, sensitivity index, and equivalent von Mises stress were used to evaluate the outcomes.
resultsChanging the implant material from titanium to titanium-zirconium did not significantly affect the stress distribution or maximum stress value of other components, except for the implant itself. In the CF group, implants with a lower elastic modulus increased the stress on the screw. The TF group showed better stress distribution on the abutment and a lower stress value on the screw. The TF group demonstrated similar sensitivity for all components. DIC analysis revealed significant differences between TF-TiZr and CF-Ti in terms of the maximum (P < 0.001) and minimum principal strains (P < 0.05) on the implants and the minimum principal strains on the investment materials in both groups (P < 0.001).
conclusionsChanges in the implant material significantly affected the maximum stress of the implant. The TF group exhibited better structural integrity and reliability.
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.