ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation and Comparison of Stresses Between All-on-4 and All-on-6 Treatment Concepts With Three Different Prosthetic Materials in the Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative clinical study of stress distribution around implant supporting all - on - four versus all - on - 6 prosthetic concepts.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Comparative Evaluation of Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla Rehabilitation Using the All-on-Six Concept with Zygomatic Implant and Tilted Implant as Posterior Implant-Finite Element Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Functionally Loaded Subperiosteal Implants Evaluated on a Realistic Model Reproducing Severe Atrophic Jaws.Methods and protocols · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the comparative analysis of stresses on and around implants and surrounding cortical bone using three different prosthetic materials in hybrid prosthesis using the all-on-4 technique and all-on-6 technique in the maxilla using finite element analysis (FEA). MATERIALS AND
methodsAn in vitro FEA study was conducted where a three-dimensional (3D) model of an edentulous maxilla and four different models of the mandible were built using ANSYS software version 18 (Ansys, Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, United States). Group A comprised the all-on-4 technique where two vertical implants were placed in the lateral incisor area, and two tilted implants at 30
resultsIn the all-on-4 technique, on evaluating stresses on implants, it was revealed that acrylic consistently demonstrated lower stress magnitudes in comparison to zirconia and PFM. The stress levels escalate from 38.72 MPa in model A1 to 72.43 MPa in model A4. Zirconia endured the most substantial stresses, ranging from 53.64 MPa (A1) to 84.87 MPa (A4). Similar results were obtained for the stresses on the cortical bone and for the all-on-6 technique. However, the stresses were lower in the all-on-6 technique than in the all-on-4 technique. The lowest stress values across all prosthetic materials were recorded when the maxillary arch was restored with acrylic teeth along with a titanium bar opposing natural dentition.
conclusionThe least stresses were noticed in the all-on-6 technique with acrylic prosthetic material opposing the natural dentition. As the all-on-6 treatment concept showed the most favorable biomechanical behavior, it can be considered a viable alternative for moderate atrophic maxillary rehabilitation.
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.