ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2025
Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution in single and three-unit implant-supported prostheses with different internal connections.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The accurate fit between the dental implant and the prosthetic abutment is crucial for the stability of the entire prosthetic-implant system, providing a better distribution of the occlusal load to the surrounding bone. To improve stress distribution between the implant and bone, various types of internal connection implants have been introduced. However, few studies are available on the biomechanical behavior of these connections. This study investigated the stress distribution in screwed implant-supported prosthesis with different implant‒abutment connections using a photoelastic analysis. Methods: Eight photoelastic models were fabricated in PL-2 resin and divided according to the different types of internal connections: Morse taper (MT), internal Morse hexagon (IMH), Morse taper hexagon (MTH), and frictional Morse taper (FMT) implants (3.75×11.5 mm), and the number of crowns (single and 3-unit pieces). Models were positioned in a circular polariscope, and 100-N axial and oblique (45º) loads were applied to the occlusal surface of the crowns using a universal testing machine. The stresses were photographically recorded and qualitatively analyzed using Adobe Photoshop software. Results: Under axial loading, the number and distribution of high-intensity fringes did not differ among groups for both crown types (single and splinted 3-element). Low stress values were noted at the implant apex. The oblique loading increased the number of fringes for all groups. In conclusion, the internal connection tested in this study did not affect the number and distribution of stress. Conclusion: The different types of internal connections provided better stability for the implant‒prosthesis set, which improved stress distribution when the prosthetic pillar was loaded, with the Morse cone friction system showing less stress. Oblique loading resulted in a higher stress concentration than axial loading.
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.