ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of fracture resistance of implant-supported fixed prothesis substructure materials with different cross-sectional geometry.
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 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.
- Comparative finite element analysis of 3-unit implant-supported bridges restorated with different prosthetic materials in posterior mandible.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Behavior of Different Framework and Superstructure Material Combinations in Two-Implant-Supported Four-Unit Prostheses: A Dynamic Finite Element Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Fracture Strength of Implant-Supported Hybrid Abutment Crowns: An In Vitro Study of Ceramic and Polymer-Based Materials in the Premolar Region.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare fracture resistance after thermomechanical ageing of prosthetic substructure materials with different connector designs.
methodsThree different prosthetic substructure materials were used in this study: (1) GroupZir: (Zirconia, Fusion ceram, Turkey), (2)GroupPEEK (PEEK, Whitepeaks, CopraPeek, Essen, Germany), (3)GroupFRC (Fibre-reinforced composite, Trinia, Bicon Implant, Rep. of Ireland). A total of 72 implant-supported prosthesis triangular, square, and oval connector designs were created between 2nd premolar and mandibular 2nd molar teeth. After adhesion to the implant abutments with resin cement (Pentron breeze, Kerr), the samples were applied with dynamic loading and thermomechanical ageing (120,000 cycles,120 N,5-55 °C). Fracture resistance values were obtained with a universal test device and SEM images were analysed. The analyses were performed with Two-Way ANOVA and the Tukey test (SPSS 23.00).
resultsBoth the material and the connector type were found to affect the fracture resistance (F = 8.354, p < 0.05). The highest fracture resistance value was obtained from the triangular shape in GroupZir(3200 ± 91.05) and the lowest from the oval connector design of GroupPEEK material (2410 ± 157.23). Statistically significant differences were determined in the different connector designs of GroupZir(p < 0.05). In the comparisons made according to connector design, a significant difference was obtained between GroupZir and GroupPEEK and between GroupZir and GroupFRC. Deformations were observed in the fracture pattern of the Group Zir samples and deformations in the form of rupture were seen in the GroupPEEK and GroupFRC material samples.
conclusionsThe study results demonstrated that the fracture resistance of zirconia, PEEK, and FRC restorations over 3-unit implants with different connectors is affected by connector design. All the materials were seen to be comparable in respect of the forces formed in chewing dynamics.
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.