ArticleMethods and protocols2025
Finite Element Analysis of Functionally Loaded Subperiosteal Implants Evaluated on a Realistic Model Reproducing Severe Atrophic Jaws.
Article in Methods and protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rehabilitation of the Severely Atrophic Maxilla with Subperiosteal Implants: A Biomechanical and Decision Analysis of Material and Configuration Choices.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Customized 3D-Printed Subperiosteal Titanium Implants for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Atrophic Maxilla in Geriatric Patients: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Subperiosteal Implant Application in Full-Jaw Reconstruction for Severely Atrophic Ridge: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of prosthetic framework materials in subperiosteal implants: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Indications and Complications of Subperiosteal Implants: Literature Review and Case Series.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation for patients with severely atrophic jaws is challenging due to complex anatomical considerations and the limitations of conventional augmentation techniques. This study explores the potential of subperiosteal (juxta-osseous) implants as an alternative solution, using finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate mechanical performance. Realistic jaw models, developed from radiographic data, are utilized to simulate various implant configurations and load scenarios. Results indicate that different screw placements, implant designs, and structural modifications can significantly influence stress distribution and biomechanical behavior. Upper and lower jaw models were assessed under multiple load conditions to determine optimal configurations. Findings suggest that strategic adjustments, such as adding posterior screws or altering implant connections, can enhance load distribution and reduce stress concentration, particularly in critical areas. Tensile loads in critical bone areas near cortical fixing screws exceeded 50 MPa under anterior loading, while configurations with larger load distributions reduced stress on both implant and bone. The study provides evidence-based insights into optimizing subperiosteal implant design to improve stability, longevity, and patient outcomes.
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.