ArticleBMC veterinary research2024
A forecasting model for suitable dental implantation in canine mandibular premolar region based on finite element analysis.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Analysis of Post-Core Crown Restoration in Dog Maxillary Canine Teeth.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Canine Lumbar Fractures with Different Pedicle Screw Insertion Angles.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Primary Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Printing-Guided Endodontics in the Dog Maxillary.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluating the concept of three-dimensional printing guided endodontics in the dog.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, dental implants have become a trend in the treatment of human patients with missing teeth, which may also be an acceptable method for companion animal dentistry. However, there is a gap challenge in determining appropriate implant sizes for different dog breeds and human. In this study, we utilized skull computed tomography data to create three-dimensional models of the mandibles of dogs in different sizes. Subsequently, implants of various sizes were designed and subjected to biomechanical finite element analysis to determine the optimal implant size. Regression models were developed, exploring the relationship between the average weight of dogs and the size of premolar implants. Our results illustrated that the regression equations for mean body weight (x, kg) and second premolar (PM2), third premolar (PM3), and fourth premolar (PM4) implant length (y, mm) in dogs were: y = 0.2785x + 7.8209, y = 0.2544x + 8.9285, and y = 0.2668x + 10.652, respectively; the premolar implant diameter (mm) y = 0.0454x + 3.3506, which may provide a reference for determine suitable clinical implant sizes for dogs.
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.