ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Biomechanical Evaluation of Distal Tilting Implants in All-on-Four Rehabilitation with Mild Mandibular Resorption: A Finite Element Analysis Study.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Finite Element Analysis of Peri-Implant Stress in Maxillary All-on-Four Rehabilitation: Effects of Posterior Implant Angulation and Loading Protocol.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Influence of all-on-4 implant angles on stability and crestal bone - A finite element optimization analysis.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Biomechanical analysis of maxillary posterior three unit bridge supported misial straight implant and distal tilted implant.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
The geometry of implants plays a crucial role in the success of All-on-Four treatments for the lower jaw. This study builds upon prior research by evaluating the biomechanical performance of implant-supported prostheses in full-arch fixed dental restorations, specifically focusing on different implant lengths and connection types in cases of mild atrophic resorption of the mandible. Four groups were analyzed using finite element analysis (FEA): We utilized 13 or 18 mm posterior 17-degree tilting implants, each paired with two kinds of abutment connections. The external hexagon connection (EHC) group utilized 4 mm diameter implants, while the internal hexagon connection (IHC) group employed 4.3 mm diameter implants. A vertical force was applied to the cantilever region located at the distal side of the posterior implant. The maximum stress regions were observed in prosthetic screws and multi-unit abutments (MUAs) across all groups, with the lowest von Mises stress values noted in the bone. Stress peaks for implant screws and fixtures in the 13 mm group were 19.98% and 11.42% lower, respectively, compared to the IHC group. Similarly, in the 18 mm group, stress peaks were reduced by 33.16% and 39.70% for the EHC group compared to the IHC group. The stress levels on all components remained below the ultimate strength of the titanium alloy. For the same implant lengths, the stress in the prosthetic screw, MUAs, implant screw, and implant fixture positions was lower in the EHC group. When implant length was increased, a decrease in stress levels was observed in the implant screw and fixture of the EHC group and only in the implant screw of the IHC group. However, an increase in stress was noted in the prosthetic screw and MUAs for both groups.
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.