ArticleInternational dental journal2025
Biomechanical Evaluation of Cantilevered 2-Unit Implant-Supported Prostheses: A 3D Finite Element Study.
Article in International dental journal, 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.
- Comparative numerical finite element analysis of tooth-implant- versus implant-implant-supported three-unit fixed prostheses under oblique loading.Odontology · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Performance of Implant-Tooth-Supported Prostheses: A Numerical 3D Finite Element Analysis.International dental journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the biomechanical performance of cantilevered 2-unit implant-supported prostheses with zirconia and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) under 3 loading conditions.
methodA cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) scan of an edentulous mandible was segmented using Mimics software and refined in 3-Matic software to create trabecular and cortical bone structures. Implant CAD files were integrated using SolidWorks software, generating 4 models with varying implant positions: M1 (first premolar implant supporting a second premolar), M2 (second premolar implant supporting a first premolar), M3 (second premolar implant supporting a first molar), and M4 (first molar implant supporting a second premolar). Prostheses were constructed from zirconia or PEKK. Finite element analysis (FEA) in ANSYS software simulated static loading: vertical (100 N) and oblique (30° and 45°, 50 N). von Mises stress and total deformation were analyzed.
resultsVertical loading showed the highest von Mises stress at cantilever connectors, with M3 displaying the highest cortical bone stress (117 MPa). Zirconia models had slightly higher prosthetic stress, while PEKK models exhibited greater implant and cortical bone stress. Oblique loading caused higher stress in implants and prostheses but remained below yield limits. Maximum deformation was under 25 micrometers for the implant and bone, and 65 micrometers for the prosthesis.
conclusionSingle implants can support 2-unit cantilevered prostheses when additional implants are unfeasible. The location of the cantilever has minimal impact compared to its size, as a larger cantilevered part increases stress. Zirconia better resists bending forces and reduces implant stress compared to PEKK. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study guides prosthodontists in designing 2-unit implant-supported prostheses, emphasizing that multiple implants optimize stress distribution, and that zirconia is preferable for cantilevered designs.
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.