ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Effect of Internal Structural Design on Stress Distribution in 3D-Printed Subperiosteal Implants Under Mechanical Loading.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Maintenance of Custom-Made Subperiosteal Implants: A Narrative Review of Indirect Evidence and Preliminary Clinical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Custom-made subperiosteal implants are increasingly used in clinical cases where significant bone loss due to trauma or disease renders conventional endosseous implant placement unfeasible. This study investigated how different internal structural designs affect the deformation and stress distribution in mandibular subperiosteal implants under clinically relevant loading conditions. An idealized implant geometry was defined based on average human mandibular dimensions, and four configurations with identical outer shape and connection features were created, differing only in sidewall architecture (solid, top-relieved, top-relieved with lateral perforations, and top-relieved lattice framework). All specimens were manufactured by metal additive manufacturing and evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Mechanical testing was performed in two stages: (i) cyclic loading consisting of 500 bite cycles at an overall force of ~326-350 N and (ii) a single static high-load event of 2000 N, applied parallel to the fixation pin axes. CT datasets acquired before and after each stage were compared to detect permanent deformation. No measurable residual deformation was identified in any configuration; the only observed macroscopic change was an adhesive-bond limitation in one case, rather than structural yielding of the implant. Finite element analysis further supported these findings by identifying localized stress concentrations mainly at the implant-prosthetic interface and by revealing the load-transfer zones that govern the mechanical response. Overall, the results indicate that lightweight, perforated, and lattice-based internal designs can preserve global structural integrity across physiological and supra-physiological load ranges while enabling design optimization to improve stress distribution.
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.