ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Finite element analysis of primary healing implants with different transmucosal designs.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThis study aimed to assess the response of peri-implant tissues, both hard and soft, to mechanical stress when using a primary healing implant (PHI) with two different transmucosal profiles: concave (Model A) and divergent (Model B). The investigation also sought to observe bone modeling under post-extraction conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe methodology involved the creation of a three-dimensional bone model of the first molar region, derived from a computed tomography scan. Subsequently, two implants were inserted into the bone site and subjected to a loading force of 100 N at a 45° angle.
resultsThe results of stress analysis, using the von Mises criterion, indicated that Model A exhibited a more uniform stress distribution within the soft tissues, registering a maximum value of 75 MPa, in contrast to 126 MPa observed in Model B. Concerning implant stress, the peak value was recorded at the conometric connection zone between the implant and the abutment, measuring 138 MPa for Model B and 125 MPa for Model A. The study specifically analyzed cortical bone stress, which revealed levels of 72 MPa for Model B and 64 MPa for Model A. Additionally, stress distribution in immature bone ranged from 1.3 to 9 MPa for Model A and from 1.5 to 12 MPa for Model B.
conclusionsThe finite element method represents a valuable tool for the design and optimization of implant shapes, taking into account occlusal loads and specific anatomical locations. This approach aims to enhance the stimulation of both soft and hard tissues, thereby mitigating the risk of implant failure.
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.