ArticleBMC oral health2025
Biomechanical evaluation of three full-arch immediate loading protocols in the mandible via finite element analysis: All-on-4, Trefoil, and Five-implant design.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmediate-loading full-arch concepts such as All-on-4, Trefoil, and Five-Implant protocols are widely used for mandibular rehabilitation, yet their comparative biomechanical behavior remains insufficiently defined. This study aimed to biomechanically compare three immediate loading full-arch rehabilitation protocols-Trefoil, All-on-4, and 5-Implant designs-in the edentulous mandible using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA), focusing on stress distribution, strain accumulation, and deformation patterns under functional loading. MATERIALS AND
methodsA digital edentulous mandible model was constructed, incorporating cortical and cancellous bone layers, and standardized prosthetic designs for each configuration. Three implant-supported protocols were simulated: Trefoil (three axial implants with a prefabricated bar), All-on-4 (two axial anterior and two posterior tilted implants), and a Five-Implant design (midline, canine, and second premolar implants). The implant-bone interface, simulating immediate loading without full osseointegration, was assigned a coefficient of 0.30. Axial and 45° oblique loads of 100 N were applied to the first molar. Von Mises stress, principal stresses, equivalent strain, and total deformation were analyzed.
resultsThe Five-Implant model exhibited the most favorable biomechanical outcomes, demonstrating the lowest stress and strain values across prosthesis, implant components, and cortical bone. The Trefoil system showed the highest prosthetic stress (156.48 MPa axial; 119.32 MPa oblique) and abutment screw deformation, attributed to its reduced implant support and increased cantilever length. All-on-4 generated elevated cortical bone strain under oblique loading (4180 με), surpassing the pathological overload threshold (>4000 με), whereas, the Five-Implant model maintained cortical strain within the physiological remodeling range.
conclusionImplant number and distribution significantly affect biomechanical behavior in immediate full-arch rehabilitation. The Five-Implant design offers biomechanical superiority in stress mitigation and bone-strain control, while Trefoil and All-on-4 configurations present design-dependent biomechanical challenges. Treatment planning considering anatomical limitations and functional loading conditions is essential to optimize clinical outcomes.
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.