ArticleScientific reports2026
Biomechanical effect of implant thickness and screw diameter on CFR-PEEK subperiosteal implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of subperiosteal implant framework thickness and screw diameter on the biomechanical behavior of patient-specific subperiosteal implant systems made from 60% Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and Methods: Four three-dimensional FEA models were constructed using a single patient-specific maxillary geometry derived from computed tomography (CT) data in these models, two implant framework thicknesses (T:1.0 mm and 1.5 mm) and two screw diameters (SD: 1.5 mm and 2.0 mm) were analyzed in combination using 60% CFR-PEEK biomaterial. Three loading scenarios were simulated: (1) Bilateral 150 N perpendicular force to the buccal cusp tips of the first and second premolars and the first molar, (2) Unilateral 100 N oblique force at a 30° angle from buccal to palatal to the same areas, and (3) Bilateral 150 N perpendicular force to the central and lateral incisors. Total displacement values, maximum and minimum principal stresses in the bone; Von Mises stresses in the bone, subperiosteal implant, abutment, and metal framework were evaluated. Results: Increasing the subperiosteal implant framework thickness was found to reduce stresses that were particularly elevated in the posterior maxillary region under various loading conditions, while simultaneously increasing the stresses on the subperiosteal implant and metal framework. Increasing the screw diameter decreased the stresses on both the bone and implant, but resulted in higher stress concentrations within the metal framework. The 60% CFR-PEEK material with a high elastic modulus reduced stresses in the bone, but the concentration of applied loads in the implant body and metal framework led to higher stress values in these structures. Conclusion: Subperiosteal implant framework thickness, screw diameter, and material stiffness appear to have a significant influence on stress distribution and overall stability in subperiosteal implant systems. Although this study is limited to finite element analysis, the findings suggest that CFR-PEEK based designs may satisfy the essential biomechanical requirements for clinical application.
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.