ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparison of Surface Strains of Polymeric Frameworks for Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Digital Image Correlation Study.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
The gold standard materials used for frameworks of full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses (ISFPs) have traditionally been metal alloys, but recently, high-performance polymers such as polyetherketones and fibre-reinforced resins have been gaining popularity despite the lack of evidence of load-bearing capacity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the displacements and strains of milled polymeric frameworks for full-arch ISFPs using 3D digital image correlation.
methodsTwelve frameworks were milled from four polymeric materials (three per group): polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and fibre-reinforced composite (FRC). Each framework was fitted with titanium links and screwed to implant analogues embedded in resin and tested for static load-bearing capacity up to 200N. Displacements were captured with two high-speed photographic cameras and analysed with a video correlation system on three spatial axes, U, V, and W, along with principal tensile, compressive and von Mises strains.
resultsPEEK exhibited the highest displacement, indicating greater flexibility, while FRC showed the lowest displacement, suggesting enhanced rigidity. Von Mises strain analysis revealed that PMMA and PEEK experienced higher strain, whereas PEKK and FRC demonstrated lower strain distribution. Bayesian ANOVA provided strong evidence for material differences.
conclusionFRC exhibited superior load-bearing characteristics, reinforcing its potential as a viable clinical alternative to metal-based ISFPs.
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.