ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Stress Analysis of Maxillary Implant Prostheses With Different Retention Designs and Restorative Materials.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImplant-supported restorations are widely used to replace missing teeth; however, their long-term success depends largely on the biomechanical behavior of the implant-prosthesis complex. This study aimed to evaluate and compare stress distribution patterns in maxillary implant-supported restorations with different retention methods and crown materials under axial and oblique loading conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA three-dimensional finite element model of a partially edentulous maxillary premolar region was constructed. A titanium dental implant with an abutment was positioned vertically within the cortical and cancellous bone. Four restorative configurations were analyzed: cement-retained porcelain-fused-to-metal, screw-retained porcelain-fused-to-metal, cement-retained zirconia, and screw-retained zirconia crowns. All materials were assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic. Two loading conditions were simulated: a vertical axial load of 100 N applied along the implant axis and an oblique load of 100 N applied at 30° to the implant axis. von Mises stress distribution was evaluated in the crown, abutment, implant, prosthetic screw, and surrounding bone.
resultsCement-retained restorations demonstrated a more uniform stress distribution than screw-retained restorations, particularly at the implant-abutment interface. Porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns exhibited relatively lower stress concentrations in prosthetic components than zirconia crowns. Oblique loading generated higher stress values than axial loading in all models, with maximum stresses localized at the implant neck and the crestal cortical bone.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this finite element study, cement-retained porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations exhibited more favorable biomechanical behavior in the maxilla than screw-retained titanium-based restorations. The results highlight the importance of retention type, restorative material, and occlusal loading direction in achieving optimal implant-supported restoration performance.
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.