ArticleBMC oral health2025
Biomechanical evaluation of prosthetic framework materials in subperiosteal implants: a finite element analysis.
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 6 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
6 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
- Biomechanical Behavior of Different Framework and Superstructure Material Combinations in Two-Implant-Supported Four-Unit Prostheses: A Dynamic Finite Element Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of cantilever length and arch form in the All-on-4 implant concept: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effect of implant thickness and screw diameter on CFR-PEEK subperiosteal implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis finite element analysis was performed to evaluate the stress distribution and biomechanical performance of various prosthetic framework materials supported by subperiosteal implants. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of framework materials with different elastic modulus using finite element stress analysis.
methodsA three-dimensional finite element model of a completely edentulous maxilla was reconstructed using computed tomography data of a patient. A subperiosteal implant was designed with four different framework materials: cobalt-chrome (CoCr), titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). To generate five distinct prosthetic designs, the Ti framework was veneered with both porcelain and acrylic resin, while CoCr and Zr were veneered with porcelain, and PEEK was veneered with composite resin. A vertical force of 100 N at an anterior region, 150 N of vertical forces and 100 N oblique forces at posterior region was applied simultaneously. Principal stress in bone, von Mises stress in implants, prosthetic frameworks, implant screws, and prosthetic screws were calculated and compared.
resultsThe PEEK-composite framework exhibited the highest stress values in bone, implants, and screws, while the CoCr framework demonstrated the lowest. Compared to CoCr, the PEEK-composite combination produced approximately 14% higher cortical bone stress, 22% higher trabecular bone stress, and nearly 96% higher prosthetic screw stress. Titanium-acrylic and titanium-porcelain combinations showed similar stress distributions, indicating that the elastic modulus of the veneering material had no significant influence. Among all components, the prosthetic screw exhibited the greatest stress concentration (233 MPa), whereas fixation screws showed lower stress levels, with a maximum of 71 MPa.
conclusionsThe success of implant supported prostheses may be influenced by the selection of an appropriate framework material for the specific clinical situation. Furthermore, the findings suggest that subperiosteal implant treatment planning should account not only for the selection of the framework material but also for the mechanical resilience of the screws.
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.