ArticleOdontology2026
Comparative numerical finite element analysis of tooth-implant- versus implant-implant-supported three-unit fixed prostheses under oblique loading.
Article in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical evaluation of cantilever length and arch form in the All-on-4 implant concept: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effect of implant thickness and screw diameter on CFR-PEEK subperiosteal implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the biomechanical performance of fixed dental prostheses supported by either tooth-implant or implant-implant configurations, fabricated from zirconia or polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), under oblique loading using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Three mandibular posterior models were developed: M1 (implant at the first molar and natural tooth at the first premolar), M2 (implant at the first premolar and natural tooth at the first molar), and M3 (implants at both the first premolar and first molar). Each model was restored with a three-unit prosthesis fabricated from either zirconia or PEKK. The digital workflow included anatomical segmentation using Mimics software, refinement of bone and soft tissues with 3-Matic software, and integration of implants, abutments, and prosthetic components, followed by meshing and FEA using ANSYS software. All models were subjected to oblique loading of 50 N at 30° and 45°, and von Mises stress and deformation were recorded. M3 exhibited the most favorable biomechanical behavior, showing the lowest von Mises stress across almost all components. The hybrid tooth-implant models (M1 and M2) showed higher stress concentrations, particularly M2 with PEKK (loading angle 45°), which recorded the highest implant stress (312 MPa) and the greatest deformation (75 µm). The highest screw stress was recorded in M1 with PEKK, reaching 483 MPa. Zirconia exhibited higher stress within the prosthesis, but lower deformation, whereas PEKK resulted in greater deformation in the tooth and periodontal ligament (PDL). Implant-implant-supported prostheses showed the most favorable biomechanical behavior under oblique loading. Tooth-implant models, especially with anterior implant placement, exhibited higher stress and deformation. Zirconia offered greater rigidity and dimensional stability, while PEKK provided better stress dissipation but required careful design to manage its flexibility.
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.