ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Influence of Various Implant Placement Strategies on Stress Distribution in Maxillary Implant-Retained Overdenture: A 3D Finite-Element Analysis.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Various Implant Placement Strategies on Stress Distribution in Maxillary Implant-Retained Overdenture: A 3D Finite-Element Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study used three-dimensional (3D) finite-element analysis (FEA) to investigate the effect of different implant placement strategies on the biomechanical behavior of implant-supported maxillary overdentures, and provide an initial guide to clinical treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor an edentulous maxilla, six different implant-supported overdenture models with various implant placement strategies were created using CATIA software. The reference model (5R-3R-3L-5L) featured symmetrical implant placement in the canine and second premolar regions bilaterally. Five additional models incorporated asymmetrical implant placement strategies: 5R-3R-1L-3L, 5R-2R-3L-5L, 5R-4R-3L-5L, 4R-3R-3L-5L, and 6R-3R-3L-5L. All models had identical bone properties, prosthetic components, material characteristics, and loading conditions. The geometric models were analyzed using ANSYS 24.0 Workbench software. The maximum principal stress for bone, and stress distribution patterns were analyzed, and the performance of the models was compared with the symmetrical reference model.
resultsThe quantitative and qualitative results showed that the implant placement strategy significantly influenced the magnitude and distribution of stress. The symmetrical implant placement strategy demonstrated the most favorable stress distribution, with the lowest maximum stress values in positions 5 R (2.69 MPa), 3 R (2.25 MPa), 3 L (2.16 MPa), and 5 L (3.24 MPa). Placement of implants in the anterior region resulted in stress concentration in the anterior region with maximum stress values at positions 5 R (3.24 MPa), 3 L (3.96 MPa), 1 L (5.09 MPa), and 3 L (5.57 MPa). Asymmetrical implant placement strategies with increased anteroposterior distribution and more posterior placement also demonstrated favorable biomechanical performance. Certain asymmetrical patterns induced fulcrum effects, leading to heterogeneous stress distribution.
conclusionsThe symmetrical (5R-3R-3L-5L) implant placement may provide a more uniform stress distribution, which may enhance peri-implant bone preservation and long-term implant stability. Implant placement in the canine region should be prioritized, while mesially-positioned implants warrant clinical caution due to higher stress levels in bilaterally symmetrical implant placement strategies.
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.