ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Effect of Occlusal Scheme and Bone-Level Implant Number and Position on Stress Distribution in Kennedy Class II Implant-Assisted Removable Partial Dentures: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stress distribution in different tooth-implant supported mandibular prostheses rehabilitating unilateral free-end saddle: a biomechanical comparative finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanics of different thread designs of dental implants assisting unilateral free end mandibular 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the effect of occlusion and implant number/position on stress distribution in Kennedy Class II implant-assisted removable partial denture (IARPD). MATERIALS AND
methodsIARPDs were designed in six models: with one implant (bone level with a platform of 4 mm and length of 10 mm) at the site of (I) canine, (II) between first and second premolars, (III) first molar, (IV) second molar, or two implants at the sites of (V) canine-first molar, and (VI) canine-second molar. A conventional RPD served as control. Loads were applied according to the group function (GF) (500N load was applied to the left canine/premolar/molar teeth in the ratio of 1:1:2) or canine guidance (CG) (125N load was to the canine tooth) occlusions. Maximum displacement and Von Mises Stress in different components were analyzed by finite element analysis (FEA).
resultsThe control model showed the highest displacement followed by the IARPD with a canine implant in both occlusal schemes. In GF, the maximum and minimum jaw stress were recorded in IARPDs with canine implants (16.45 MPa) and canine-first molar implants (13.47 MPa), respectively. In CG, the maximum and minimum jaw stress was recorded in IARPD with first/second premolar implant (15.91 MPa) and canine-first molar implants (12.38 MPa), respectively. The highest stress in resin, framework, and implant(s) was noted in IARPD with canine implant in both schemes. The lowest stress in the implant(s) was recorded in IARPD with canine-second molar implants in GP and IARPD with canine-first molar implants in CG.
conclusionDental implants reduced the total displacement of IARPDs, increased stress in mechanical components, and did not affect stress distribution in biological components. Insertion of two implants decreased implant stress. The GP scheme caused greater stress on mechanical components.
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.