ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Finite Element Analysis of Maxillary Overdentures Supported by Two, Three, and Four Implants.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate, through finite element analysis (FEA), the biomechanical behavior of edentulous maxillary overdentures supported on 2, 3, and 4 implants with conometric connections, and to determine the minimum implant number that maintains stresses within physiological limits. A 3D finite element model of a resorbed edentulous maxilla was generated from CT images and processed in ANSYS v19.0. Subsequently, six models were simulated according to implant number (2, 3, or 4) and cortical bone thickness (0.5 mm or 1 mm). Conical connection implants and cobalt-chromium-reinforced overdentures with Equator attachments were modeled. Bilateral axial loads were applied and Von Mises equivalent stresses were calculated for implants and abutments, while maximum and minimum principal stresses were analyzed in bone. Results showed that the highest deformation and stress concentrations were observed in the two-implant models, with trabecular stresses ranging from 6.5 to 8.4 MPa, exceeding the 5 MPa safety threshold. In contrast, both three- and four-implant models maintained trabecular stresses below 3 MPa, while keeping cortical bone stresses within physiological limits. The three-implant tripod configuration demonstrated a comparable stress distribution to the four-implant models. From a biomechanical perspective, overdentures supported on four implants with 1 mm cortical thickness showed the most favorable performance. Nevertheless, the three-implant model represented a biomechanically acceptable and potentially cost-effective alternative, suggesting its viability as a simplified clinical option that warrants further investigation.
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.