ArticleBMC oral health2026
The effect of different abutment anti-rotation structures on short implant placement in cases of insufficient bone volume in the posterior maxillary region: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to use finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the mechanical effects of eight different anti-rotation structures in fin-type short implants based on the Bicon system under cyclic loading conditions.
methodsBased on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data, three-dimensional models of the maxillary posterior region and implant crowns were reconstructed and assembled with nine sets of fin-type short implant-abutment systems modeled using SolidWorks 2021. Finite element meshes were generated using 10-node tetrahedral elements (~ 2.41 million elements per model) in Hypermesh 2022, with mesh convergence verified to ensure computational error < 3%. Static structural analysis was performed in ANSYS 2022 with bonded contact conditions representing complete osseointegration. Three-stage loading (vertical, buccal-lingual 45°, lingual-buccal 45°) at 150 N was applied to simulate the masticatory cycle.
resultThe unidirectional anti-rotation design exhibited the lowest peak stresses (cortical bone: 60.36 MPa, representing a 38% reduction versus baseline control; cancellous bone: 17.21 MPa, representing a 49% reduction; implant: 446.57 MPa, safety factor 1.97) and peak strains (cortical bone: 4409 µε; cancellous bone: 4779 µε, within the physiological adaptive remodeling range < 4000 µε). This design demonstrated superior mechanical strength with the highest safety margin against material yielding, improved structural stiffness with the lowest deformation under load, and optimal stress distribution characterized by reduced stress concentration and more uniform load transfer compared to other anti-rotation configurations.
conclusionFinite element analysis revealed that among nine anti-rotation configurations evaluated, the unidirectional (single-sided) design exhibited optimal mechanical performance with 38-49% stress reduction in peri-implant bone tissue and the highest safety factor (1.97) in the implant component. For maxillary first molar short implant placement in cases of insufficient bone volume, adding a simple unidirectional anti-rotation structure to the Morse taper connection provides superior mechanical strength, improved stress distribution, and reduced risk of bone overload compared to either no anti-rotation structure or complex multi-sided configurations. These computational findings support the clinical selection of simplified anti-rotation designs for enhanced long-term stability in challenging anatomical scenarios.
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.