Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis.
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 NCT06362057 (Biomechanical Effects of Digitally Constructed Subperiosteal Implants From Different Materials With Different Prosthetic Superstructures on Atrophied Maxilla), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Biomechanical Effects of Digitally Constructed Subperiosteal Implants From Different Materials With Different Prosthetic Superstructures on Atrophied Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across Indications, from Established Full-Arch Use to Emerging Single-Tooth and Oncologic Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Rehabilitation of the Severely Atrophic Maxilla with Subperiosteal Implants: A Biomechanical and Decision Analysis of Material and Configuration Choices.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical comparison of titanium and Y-TZP subperiosteal implants in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Maintenance of Custom-Made Subperiosteal Implants: A Narrative Review of Indirect Evidence and Preliminary Clinical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Biomechanical evaluation of prosthetic framework materials in subperiosteal implants: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Impact of framework material, cantilever design, and wing configuration on stress distribution in patient specific additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implants: a 3D finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- AI-powered finite element analysis for predicting fracture patterns in endodontically treated teeth restored with posts.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to evaluate how different combinations of subperiosteal and superstructure framework materials-titanium, modified PEEK, and PEKK-affect stress distribution on bone in atrophic maxillae, using finite element analysis (FEA).
methodsA three-dimensional finite element model of an atrophic maxilla was created from CT data and processed through CAD and ANSYS software. Nine combinations of framework materials were tested under three loading protocols (vertical, oblique, and incisor-directed forces). The subperiosteal framework was fixed in place by 12 mini-screw with different lengths, that the 3 materials were assigned to frameworks in 9 different combinations for the lowest stresses on bone. Three different loading protocols were applied to the prosthetic structure with each of frameworks materials combination.
resultsTitanium subperiosteal frameworks transferred the least stress to underlying bone and fixation screws, while modified PEEK and PEKK showed higher stress values, particularly under incisor loading. Titanium superstructures exhibited higher internal stresses due to rigidity but protected supporting structures more effectively. Cases under vertical incisors forces showed very high stress levels on cement layer and subperiosteal frame due to bending, and high stresses on mini-screws and bone. These levels were critical for cement layer, modified PEEK, and PEKK framework materials, bone, except, mini screws, that stresses level were in the safe region.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this FEA analysis, Titanium is the optimal material for subperiosteal frameworks in atrophic maxillae due to its superior stress distribution. PEKK and modified PEEK may be viable alternatives in patients with reduced functional loading. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Titanium subperiosteal framework should be considered the optimum material for subperiosteal implants. Modified PEEK and PEKK material can be considered as alternative material to titanium subperiosteal framework for patients with lower masticatory forces (complete denture on the opposite arch or on the anterior segment). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: Registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT06362057) (2024-04-8).
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.