ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Mechanical Behavior of PEEK and PMMA Graphene and Ti6Al4V Implant-Supported Frameworks: In Silico Study.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Effect of Connection Geometry and Cantilever Length on the Mechanical Behavior of Ti6Al4V and PEEK Bar-Supported Implant Prostheses with Angled Abutments.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Syndrome of the trephined: from pathophysiology to cranioplasty - an updated narrative review.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Comparison of the Internal and Marginal Adaptation of Implant-Supported Restorations on Titanium Base Using Various Materials: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comparative analysis has been carried out between three different dental materials suitable for the prostheses manufacturing. The analysis performed is based on the finite elements method (FEM) and was made to evaluate their performance under three different loading conditions. Three different materials were modeled with 3D CAD geometry, all of them suitable to be simulated by means of a linear elastic model. The materials employed were graphene polymethyl methacrylate (G-PMMA) with 0.25% of graphene, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and Ti6Al4V. Three loading conditions have been defined: distal, medial, and central. In all cases under study, the load was applied progressively, 5 N by 5 N until a previously fixed threshold of 25 N was reached, which always ensures that work is carried out in the elastic zone. The behavior of G-PMMA and PEEK in the tests performed is similar. Regarding maximum deformations in the model, it has been found that deformations are higher in the G-PMMA models when compared to those made of PEEK. The highest values of maximum stress according to the von Mises criteria are achieved in models made of Ti6Al4V, followed by G-PMMA and PEEK. G-PMMA is more prone to plastic deformations compared to Ti6Al4V. However, due to its relatively higher stiffness compared to other common polymers, G-PMMA is able to withstand moderate stress levels before significant deformation occurs, placing it in the intermediate position between Ti6Al4V and PEEK in terms of stress capacity. It should be noted that there is also a difference in the results obtained depending on the applied load, whether distal, medial, or central, proving that, in all simulations, it is the distal test that offers the worst results in terms of presenting a higher value for both displacement and tension. The results obtained allow us to identify the advantages and limitations of each material in terms of structural strength, mechanical behavior, and adaptability to loading conditions that simulate realistic scenarios.
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.