ArticleBMC oral health2025
Biomechanical behavior of titanium, cobalt-chromium, zirconia, and PEEK frameworks in implant-supported prostheses: a dynamic finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical effects of three prosthetic materials on implant-supported fixed restoration following fibula reconstruction of maxillary bone defects: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Stress distribution in titanium and zirconia implants with full-arch prostheses: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Behavior of Different Framework and Superstructure Material Combinations in Two-Implant-Supported Four-Unit Prostheses: A Dynamic Finite Element Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Stress distribution in angulated bendable one-piece and two-piece implant-supported single crowns in the posterior maxilla: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Framework Material on Stress, Fatigue, and Stability of "All-on-Four" System Components-Biomechanical Evaluation with Finite Element Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effect of framework material and gyroid lattice design on the biomechanics of all-on-four full-arch prostheses.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Prosthetic and Biological Complications of Metal-Zirconia versus Metal-Acrylic Implant-Supported Screw-Retained Complete-Arch Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Article
- 3D finite element analysis of removable partial denture with lingual bar major connector constructed with cobalt chromium, PEEK, PEKK, and BioHPP.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of prosthetic framework materials in subperiosteal implants: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Titanium Alloy Titanflex® Compared to Conventional Materials for Removable Denture Bases: An Experimental Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomechanics of different thread designs of dental implants assisting unilateral free end mandibular partial dentures.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of Surface Strains of Polymeric Frameworks for Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Digital Image Correlation Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomechanical considerations in RPD design: application and perspective of finite element method in distal extension removable partial denture rehabilitation.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
- Lateral stress distribution analysis on hafnium metal bar for implant superstructure- A finite element analysis.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe mechanical properties of framework materials significantly influence stress distribution and the long-term success of implant-supported prostheses. Although titanium, cobalt-chromium, zirconia, and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) are widely used, their biomechanical performance under dynamic loading conditions remains insufficiently investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of four framework materials with different Young's modulus using dynamic finite element stress analysis.
methodsA 3D edentulous maxillary model was extracted from a computer tomography (CT) database. Bone level implants with conical connection designs were placed in the anterior (canine) and posterior (first molar) areas. Anterior implants were parallel, yet posterior implants were inclined distally by 30 degrees. According to the framework material, four groups were formed: cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr), zirconia (Zr), titanium (Ti), and polyether ether ketone (PEEK). For each framework material, twelve separate models of analysis were created by applying force in three different orientations. Dynamic forces were employed to replicate the chewing process. Principal and von Mises stresses were measured and evaluated.
resultsThe PEEK framework exhibited the highest maximum von Mises stress values (372.55 MPa) on the abutment and the highest maximum principle stress values (59.27 MPa) in the cortical bone. The Co-Cr framework had the lowest minimum principle stress (3.98 MPa) in the trabecular bone. The displacements of the Co-Cr, Zr, Ti, and PEEK frameworks were 0.15 mm, 0.15 mm, 0.17 mm, and 0.35 mm, respectively.
conclusionFrameworks having a greater Young's modulus are less susceptible to deformation.
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.