ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Comparative Biomechanical Evaluation of Novel Screwless Retained Dental Implant Prosthesis: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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.
- Influence of Conventional and Innovative Abutment Designs and Retention Mechanisms on the Biomechanics and Microgap Pattern: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Preliminary Randomized Trial on the Efficiency and Clinical Value of a Cementless Screw-Retained Implant Workflow in Single-Implant Restorations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the biomechanical behaviors of three types of dental implant restorations: a screw-and-cement-retained prosthetic system (SCRP); a cementless screw-retained prosthetic system (SRP); and a novel screwless hook-retained prosthetic system (HRP). Three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) was used to evaluate biomechanical behavior. A comparative study of three dental implant prostheses was performed under two loading conditions: a vertical load of 100 N and an oblique load of 100 N at an angle of 30°. Under both loading conditions, the maximum von Mises stress values in the dental implant using the HRP system were lower (21.33 MPa) than those of the SCRP system (32.91 MPa), and the stress distribution of the implant prosthetic components tended to be more favorable than that of the SCRP system. Thus, the results show that the performance of the HRP system was comparable to that of a conventional SRP system under the same conditions. Regarding stress distribution, the novel screwless HRP system presents a viable alternative implant prosthodontic system to the conventional SCRP system.
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.