ArticleBMC oral health2024
Mandibular biomechanics rehabilitated with different prosthetic restorations under normal and impact loading scenarios.
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 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.
- Advances in Composite Bioactive Scaffolds for Alveolar Bone Repair: Implications for Oral Surgery.Brazilian dental journal · 2026Review
- Effect of anodization on metal-ceramic bond strength of titanium manufactured by selective laser melting: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Simulation of a Custom-Made Temporomandibular Joint-An Academic View on an Industrial Workflow.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of Pontic Length on the Structural Integrity of Zirconia Fixed Partial Dentures (FPDs).Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestorative treatment options for edentulous patients range from traditional dentures to fixed restorations. The proper selection of materials greatly influences the longevity and stability of fixed restorations. Most prosthetic parts are frequently fabricated from titanium. Ceramics (e.g. zirconia) and polymers (e.g. PEEK and BIOHPP) have recently been included in these fabrications. The mandibular movement produces complex patterns of stress and strain. Mandibular fractures may result from these stresses and strains exceeding the critical limits because of the impact force from falls or accidents. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of the edentulous mandible with different restorations under different loading situations.
objectiveThis study analyzes the biomechanical behavior of mandibles after four prosthetic restorations for rehabilitation under normal and impact loading scenarios. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe mandibular model was constructed with a fixed restoration, which was simulated using various materials (e.g. Titanium, Zirconia & BIOHPP), under frontal bite force, maximum intercuspation, and chin impact force. From the extraction of tensile and compressive stresses and strains, as well as the total deformation of mandible segments, the biomechanical behavior and clinical situations were studied.
resultsUnder frontal bite, the anterior body exhibited the highest tensile (60.34 MPa) and compressive (108.81 MPa) stresses using restoration 4, while the condyles and angles had the lowest tensile (7.12 MPa) and compressive (12.67 MPa) stresses using restoration 3. Under maximum intercuspation, the highest tensile (40.02 MPa) and compressive (98.87 MPa) stresses were generated on the anterior body of the cortical bone using restoration 4. Additionally, the lowest tensile (7.7 MPa) and compressive (10.08 MPa) stresses were generated on the condyles and angles, respectively, using restoration 3. Under chin impact, the highest tensile (374.57 MPa) and compressive (387.3 MPa) stresses were generated on the anterior body using restoration 4. Additionally, the lowest tensile (0.65 MPa) and compressive (0.57 MPa) stresses were generated on the coronoid processes using restoration 3. For all loading scenarios, the anterior body of the mandible had the highest stress and strain values compared with the other segments. Compared to the traditional titanium restoration.2, restoration.1(zirconia) increases the tensile and compressive stresses and strains on the mandibular segments, in contrast to restoration.3 (BIOHPP). In addition, zirconia implants exhibited higher displacements than the other implants.
conclusionIn the normal loading scenario, the tensile and compressive stresses and strains on the mandible were within the allowable limits when all restorations were used. Under the chin impact loading scenario, the anterior body of the mandible was damaged by restorations 1 and 4.
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.