ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Optimizing dental implant design: Structure, strength, and bone ingrowth.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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.
- HAp/PLGA/Chitosan Scaffolds Fabricated by Freeze-Drying and 3D Printing for Bone Regeneration: In Vitro Evaluation and Finite Element Analysis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Influence of Immediate Versus Delayed Loading on Peri-Implant Bone Healing: A Comparative FEA Study of Titanium Threaded and Scaffold Dental Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multi-Objective Optimization of Dental Implant Designs With Multi-Recessed Holes: Insights From Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Replacing missing teeth with implant-supported prostheses is a common practice; however, function-induced early bone loss may exacerbate peri-implantitis. Identifying factors that influence marginal bone loss is crucial. This study used finite element (FE) simulation and in-vitro analysis to evaluate design concepts and their effects on stresses and strains in dental implants and surrounding bone. Materials and methods: Five implant designs were analyzed: (1) full solid, (2) upper porous, (3) lower porous, (4) lower porous: upper half, and (5) lower porous: lower half. The study included stability measurements, three-dimensional FE modeling, in-vitro mechanical testing, and simulations of long-term bone remodeling. Results: The full-solid design showed the highest stress tolerance, followed by the lower porous and upper porous designs. Stress concentration was higher with oblique forces. The upper porous design favored bone strain distribution but exhibited permanent deformation beyond 350 N. Lower porous implants demonstrated similar strength to the full solid but superior marginal bone growth. Conclusion: Within the scope of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) A well-designed porous structure enhances post-implantation bone growth; (2) An upper porous design facilitates bone ingrowth but exhibits reduced strength under stress; (3) Lowering porosity adversely affects bone regeneration.
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.