ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025
Assessment of Stress Distribution Around Traditional and Sleeve Fixed Partial Denture Designs: Finite Element Analysis.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Comparative finite element analysis of 3-unit implant-supported bridges restorated with different prosthetic materials in posterior mandible.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanics of Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: Material Systems, Connector Design, Retainer Design, and Abutment Stress Distribution-A Systematic Review of In Vitro and Finite Element Evidence.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Influence of Occlusal Cusp Inclination and Restoration Thickness on the Biomechanical Performance of Lithium Disilicate Molar Endocrowns: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- In-vitro analysis of stress dynamics in polyamide and metal acrylic distal extension removable partial dentures.BMC oral health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this research is to evaluate/compare the use of traditional versus sleeve fixed partial denture (PD) designs made from different materials on supporting structures. The comparison included three- and four-unit PD cases. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour finite element models are used in the research. The three-unit PD consists of the mandibular second premolar, first molar (as a pontic), and second molar. The four-unit PD includes the first premolar. The PD materials assessed were zirconia, E-max, and Celtra Duo. Bone has been simplified representing it as two cuboids. Each PD has been loaded to two cases over the pontic's central fossa: 300 N compressive, 150 N obliquely applied with 45 degrees forming 24 cases.
resultsThe three-unit traditional and sleeve PDs material change showed a slight change in cortical bone stress under vertical loading. Under oblique loading, cortical bone Von Mises stresses were higher by about 12 to 15% more than vertical loading. On the other hand, the four-unit PDs showed minor effect by changing PD material, while using sleeve design PD can reduce the cortical bone stresses up to 20% in comparison to traditional PD design. The mucosa and spongy bone were negligibly affected by changing PD material, and the traditional and sleeve designs showed close values to each other. Superiority of sleeve design appeared by reducing cement layer stresses dramatically, while PD body material rigidity affects its response.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, the higher rigid PD material can dissipate loadings over it more preferably regarding its effect on the underlying structures. Sleeve PD design is equivalent to the traditional one for three-unit PDs, while it showed better performance with four-unit PDs. Zirconia three-unit PDs' bodies received the lowest stresses and redistributed and transferred the applied load to the underneath structures better than the other two tested materials. This finding was reversed with four-unit PDs.
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.