ArticleCureus2025
Influence of Thread Geometry and Bone Density on Stress Distribution in Dental Implants: A Finite Element Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized clinical study to compare implant stability and bone loss between different implant designs.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Clinical and Histological Assessment of Knife-Edge Thread Implant Stability After Ridge Preservation Using Hydroxyapatite and Sugar Cross-Linked Collagen: Preliminary Report.Dentistry journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDental implant success relies on optimal stress distribution at the implant-bone interface, which may be influenced by thread design and bone density. While V-shaped and buttress threads have been extensively studied, square and trapezoidal designs remain underexplored, particularly in varying bone densities. This study aimed to compare the stress distribution patterns of square and trapezoidal thread designs using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA). MATERIALS AND
methodsEight 3D finite element models were constructed by combining two thread designs (square and trapezoidal) with four bone densities. A mandibular first molar implant (12 mm length and 4.5 mm diameter) was modeled in SolidWorks (Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp., Waltham, MA), and mesh convergence was validated. The material properties were assigned assuming linear elasticity and isotropy. A 100 Newtons (N) axial load was applied to the crown, and von Mises stresses were analyzed in the implant, cortical bone, and cancellous bone in megapascals (MPa) using Ansys software (Ansys, Inc., Canonsburg, PA).
resultsTrapezoidal threads generated higher implant stresses (7.16-18.83 MPa) than square threads (5.21-15.08 MPa), particularly in low-density bone. Square threads transferred more stress to the cortical bone (3.69-9.60 MPa vs. trapezoidal: 2.73-7.98 MPa) across all densities. In the cancellous bone, the trapezoidal threads induced higher stresses in the dense bone but converged with the square threads in the low-density bone. Stress concentrations were localized at the thread crests in dense bone but were dispersed diffusely in low-density bone.
conclusionThe thread design significantly affected stress distribution, with square threads reducing implant stress but increasing cortical bone load, whereas trapezoidal threads minimized cortical stress at the cost of higher implant stress. Square threads may be preferable for dense bones, whereas trapezoidal designs may enhance stability in low-density bones. Preoperative bone density assessment is critical for optimizing thread selection and ensuring long-term implant success.
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.