ArticleBMC oral health2025
Biomechanical analysis of All-on-4 implant supported framework using different materials across various clinical practice.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 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
- Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of cantilever length and arch form in the All-on-4 implant concept: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Framework Material on Biomechanical Performance of an All-on-4 Prosthesis Supported by Bendable Monoblock Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Influence of Framework Material on Stress, Fatigue, and Stability of "All-on-Four" System Components-Biomechanical Evaluation with Finite Element Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effect of framework material and gyroid lattice design on the biomechanics of all-on-four full-arch prostheses.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Prosthetic and Biological Complications of Metal-Zirconia versus Metal-Acrylic Implant-Supported Screw-Retained Complete-Arch Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the global aging trend, the number of edentulous individuals is steadily increasing. All-on-4 implant restoration can greatly recovery masticatory function in edentulous patients. This study aims to determine the effect of framework material and cantilever length on the stress distribution in All-on-4 implant components using three-dimensional finite element analysis, thereby providing clinicians with insights into the design of All-on-4 superstructures to improve patient outcomes.
methodsFive framework models with cantilever lengths of 0 mm, 3 mm, 6 mm, 9 mm, and 12 mm were established, with the cantilever material selected as either titanium (Ti) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK). The jawbone, implant, and framework models were then assembled, with four implants placed in the jawbone according to the classic All-on-4 design and connected to the framework via abutments. Finally, occlusal forces were applied to the framework. Finite element analysis was used to obtain the stress and strain distribution in the jawbones, as well as the stress distribution within the implants and the frameworks.
resultsOverall, the use of a PEEK framework demonstrated better stress distribution in the jawbone due to its elastic modulus, the maximum stress of which is 26% lower at most than Ti. Although PEEK frameworks showed lower stress overall, implant stress increased, particularly for cantilever lengths over 6 mm, reaching values up to 2.6 times higher than in titanium.
conclusionsCantilever length and framework material are interrelated factors that both influence the stress distribution in the All-on-4 system. A PEEK framework can serve as an alternative to titanium framework in short cantilever lengths (under 6 mm), offering slightly better mandibular protection. Titanium is preferable for lengths between 6 mm and 9 mm to reduce mechanical risk. Cantilever lengths exceeding 12 mm are discouraged due to increased stress.
trial registrationNot Applicable.
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.