ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
Influence of Implant Geometry on the Surface Strain Behavior of Peri-Implant Bone: A 3D Analysis.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To ensure long-term implant success, it is crucial to understand the force transmission from the implant to the surrounding bone. In dentistry, bioengineering methods are applied to investigate these processes. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of different implant geometries on the surface strain behavior of porcine mandibles under load using a 3D optical camera system in combination with digital image correlation. Four different implant types were subjected to a force of 200 N in three different loading directions (axial, non-axial 15°, and non-axial 30°). Under axial loading, parallel-walled implants exhibited lower surface strain values on the peri-implant bone compared with tapered implants. However, when subjected to non-axial loading, these parallel-walled implants showed a substantial relative increase in strain by approximately a factor of 2.96 compared with axial conditions. At a 30° non-axial angle, long, tapered implants with a smaller diameter (BLX 3.75) produced lower peri-implant bone strains than implants with larger diameters and shorter lengths, while short, tapered implants (BLT) demonstrated a lower relative increase in strain (factor ~1.49) from axial to non-axial loading. Under non-axial loading, long, tapered implants with a small diameter resulted in lower strains in the peri-implant bone compared with implants with a larger diameter and shorter length. It was found that non-axial loads lead to higher strains than axial loads. Therefore, the success of implantation could be significantly influenced by selecting an appropriate implant geometry and the correct angulation of the implant.
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.