ArticleBMC oral health2025
Biomechanical comparison of various implant inclinations and abutment types in a bendable implant system.
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.
- Influence of Framework Material on Biomechanical Performance of an All-on-4 Prosthesis Supported by Bendable Monoblock Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Peri-Implant Stress in Maxillary All-on-Four Rehabilitation: Effects of Posterior Implant Angulation and Loading Protocol.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Influence of all-on-4 implant angles on stability and crestal bone - A finite element optimization analysis.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the stress distribution in peri-implant bone, implant surfaces, and within the framework material under vertical and oblique loads, considering various angulations and abutment types of bendable one-piece implants in the All-on-4 concept.
methodsA three-dimensional model of an edentulous mandible was constructed. Six different configurations were modeled according to prosthesis connection type and inclination of the posterior implants based on the All-on-4 protocol. Four one-piece implants were placed in each model and a cobalt-chromium frameworks with 14 mm cantilever lengths were designed. Under vertical and oblique loading conditions, maximum principal stress and minimum principal stress values were obtained for cortical and trabecular bone and von Mises stress values were calculated for implants and frameworks.
resultsImplant angulation, connection type, and loading conditions affected stress distribution in the peri-implant bone, implants, and frameworks. Higher stress values were observed in posterior implants with increased angulation. Screw-retained models demonstrated greater stress values compared to cement-retained ones under both loading conditions.
conclusionsFor optimal stress distribution in peri-implant bone and frameworks, cement-retained prosthesis may be preferred, especially in cases with increased implant angulation in one-piece bendable systems. Additionally, careful consideration of posterior implant angulation and loading conditions is crucial to minimize the excessive stress and to enhance long-term stability. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.