Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Comparison of occlusal force distribution and digital occlusal analysis methods of single posterior implant restorations: an in vivo study.
Observational study in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06862973 (Comparison of Occlusal Force Distribution and Digital Occlusal Analysis Methods of Single Posterior Implant Restorations and Digital Occlusal Analysis Methods), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Comparison of Occlusal Force Distribution and Digital Occlusal Analysis Methods of Single Posterior Implant Restorations and Digital Occlusal Analysis Methods
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occlusal Adjustment in Free-End Implant-Supported Restorations: Digital Scans Versus Conventional Impressions With Full- and Half-Arch Techniques.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of occlusal forces in altered and unaltered VDO using OccluSense.Bioinformation · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOcclusion plays a crucial role in maintaining masticatory function and temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Single implant supported restorations are widely used for posterior tooth replacement, but they require careful occlusal adjustment due to the absence of periodontal ligament. Digital occlusal analysis methods, such as digital impressions and Occlusense, provide quantitative assessments of occlusal contacts and force distribution. However, their accuracy and clinical relevance remain uncertain.
methodsIn this prospective clinical study, occlusal force distribution was evaluated before and after placement of single implant supported restoration using the Medit i700 intraoral scanner and OccluSense system. Measurements were performed before and after prosthesis under standardised conditions. Occlusal contact areas and force distributions were analysed using CloudCompare and ImageJ software. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test and Kendall's Tau-B correlation analysis.
resultsA total of 20 patients were included in the study. Post-restoration measurements revealed significant changes in occlusal force distribution in different segments of the dental arch (p < 0.001). Strong correlations were observed between Medit and OccluSense measurements (p < 0.001).
conclusionSingle-unit implant restorations significantly alter the occlusal force distribution, affecting not only the restored tooth but also the adjacent and opposing teeth. Both Medit i700 and OccluSense provided valuable information, with OccluSense providing a more detailed representation of occlusal force density. These findings suggest that digital occlusal analysis methods can help optimise occlusal adjustments for implant restorations.
trial registrationThe current study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT06862973) First posted: 07/03/2025. Retrospectively registered.
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.