SynthesisHead & face medicine2025
Fixture design effects on posterior dental implant stability using finite element analysis (FEA): a systematic review.
Synthesis in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Connection Geometry and Cantilever Length on the Mechanical Behavior of Ti6Al4V and PEEK Bar-Supported Implant Prostheses with Angled Abutments.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of cantilever length and arch form in the All-on-4 implant concept: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 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
- Mechanostat-Informed Strain Mapping of Osseodensification-Inspired Peri-Implant Densification Versus Conventional Drilling in Osteoporotic-like Low-Density Cancellous Bone: A 3D Static Linear Finite Element Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
Tooth loss is prevalent in the posterior region, and dental implants require optimized fixture design to ensure biomechanical stability, which is often the approach using finite element analysis (FEA). This systematic review, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines in its writing, aimed to assess the influence of fixture design on posterior implant biomechanical stability, such as stress and strain, by FEA analysis. The study search used PubMed, ScienceDirect, MDPI, SpringerLink, and OpenAire databases to find studies that analyzed fixture level, body shape, thread characteristics, diameter, length, and neck model, covering studies published between 2020 and 12 January 2025. Data from 39 of the 3,562 studies were synthesized narratively, guided by SWiM, and grouped by design parameters, with bias assessed using ROBFEAD. Tissue-level fixtures outperformed bone-level fixtures in reducing cortical bone stress and improving fatigue resistance, while the tapered body shape increased stress distribution in low-density bone (D4). Square threads minimize micro stress and movement, and larger diameters and lengths increase stability, although excessive dimensions increase cortical stress. The micro-thread neck design reduces bone resorption. The high risk of bias resulting from the lack of mechanical validation, isotropic assumptions, and static loading conditions requires attention when interpreting research findings. Clinical or experimental validation is required. Future studies should standardize thread reporting, use computed tomography (CT)-based modeling, and simulate dynamic loading for patient-specific designs.
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.