ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of implant number, attachment type, and framework material on stress distribution in mandibular overdentures: a 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing finite element analysis, we evaluated the effects of implant number, attachment type, and framework material on stress distribution in bone and in implant and prosthetic components of mandibular overdentures in completely edentulous mandibles.
methodsStraumann implants (4.1 mm diameter and 12 mm length) were placed in a completely edentulous mandible in two configurations. For the two-implant models, implants were positioned axially in the lateral–canine region while for the three-implant models, one implant was placed at the midline and two were positioned bilaterally in the canine regions. Overdentures were retained with ball or locator attachments and fabricated with either a cobalt–chromium (Co-Cr) framework, a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) framework, or no framework (acrylic base only). Three-dimensional finite element analysis was performed for 12 models in total. Mastication was simulated by applying bilateral vertical loads to a rigid, circular food bolus (radius 1 cm): 100 N at the first-molar central fossae and 65 N at the canine incisal edges. The reported outcomes were maximum (tensile) and minimum (compressive) principal stresses in cortical and trabecular bone, and von Mises stresses in the implant and prosthetic components.
resultsAcross all models, stresses were higher in cortical than in trabecular bone. Three-implant configurations yielded a more balanced stress distribution than two-implant configurations, with notably reduced midline stresses. When attachment types were compared, locator systems generated higher von Mises stresses in the implant and prosthetic components, whereas stress distribution within the surrounding bone was similar between ball and locator attachments. With respect to framework material, PEEK frameworks exhibited higher stress values than Co–Cr frameworks.
conclusionThis study shows that increasing the number of implants in overdentures improves load sharing, although it can shift the location of local stress concentrations. Greater framework rigidity is associated with lower and more homogeneous stress distributions in both bone and implant components.
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.