ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating the support and associated strain distribution in unilateral obturator with different designs: An experimental and finite element study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate support (the resistance to tissue-ward movement) and strain distribution in unilateral obturators with four designs using Digital Image Correlation (DIC) and Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Twelve epoxy-resin models were prepared to receive removable obturators that have four designs, including acrylic resin-based obturators (ARO), linear (LDO), tripodal (TDO), and a newly modified one termed fully tripodal design obturator (FTDO) were used for DIC. The models were installed in a DIC set to receive a vertical load of 150N. The strain on the dentate and defect sides was evaluated using DIC software. Mathematically, four finite element models were prepared to receive vertical and lateral loads of 100N on two points. The support and strain were assessed using the ANSYS workbench. Using DIC, the ARO demonstrated the highest strain values on the defect area and as an entire prosthesis, followed by the LDO on the defect side. Using FEA, the TDO produced the highest strain value with anterior (oblique) and posterior loads. LDO produced the lowest support and highest strain on the anterior teeth compared to TDO and FTDO. ARO resulted in the highest total strain, while the TDO produced the lowest. Both TDO and FTDO were comparable in terms of strains and support.
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.