ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Influence of Conventional and Innovative Abutment Designs and Retention Mechanisms on the Biomechanics and Microgap Pattern: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
This study aimed to analyze the biomechanics of three abutment systems with distinct retention mechanisms and their impact on the implant-abutment interface (IAI). The finite element analysis method was used to model maxillary three-unit restorations with conventional cement-retained abutment (CRA), multi-unit abutment (MUA), and innovative cementless link-retained abutment (LRA) systems. Dental implants were positioned at 0°/0°, 15°/15°, and 25°/25° angulation combinations. Analyses were performed under 400 N vertical and 200 N oblique loading applied at a 45° angulation. The LRA system exhibited lower stress on the implants and abutments under both loading conditions, whereas the CRA system demonstrated the highest stress. In contrast, the maximum principal stresses within the peri-implant bone were the highest in the LRA system under both loading conditions. Despite greater IAI displacement in the molar region, no specific abutment system exhibited distinct superiority under different scenarios. Overall, an increase in implant angulation led to higher stress values across all parameters. The MUA and LRA systems demonstrated reduced stress concentration and more uniform load distribution compared with the CRA system under tilted implant configurations. The findings suggest that the innovative cementless LRA system may serve as a feasible alternative to conventional CRA and MUA systems, exhibiting superior biomechanical performance, particularly compared with the CRA system.
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.