ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of framework material and gyroid lattice design on the biomechanics of all-on-four full-arch prostheses.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis finite element analysis (FEA) aimed to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of all-on-four implant-supported full-arch prostheses fabricated from different framework materials and internal designs.
methodsThree-dimensional FEA models were constructed to simulate bar- and Toronto-type frameworks made of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr), titanium (Ti), and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) materials. Each framework was modeled as a conventional solid structure, and metallic frameworks were also modeled with a gyroid lattice design. Vertical and oblique (30°, 150 N) loading conditions were applied to replicate masticatory forces. von Mises and principal stresses were analyzed for the framework, implant, abutment, and surrounding bone.
resultsGyroid lattice frameworks exhibited 10-25% lower internal framework stresses but transmitted 12-22% higher stresses to the implant body, abutment, and abutment screw compared with solid designs. Cortical and trabecular bone stresses remained within physiological limits. PEEK frameworks demonstrated the lowest internal stresses yet exhibited the highest deformation due to their lower elastic modulus. Metallic frameworks, particularly Ti, showed higher rigidity and more balanced stress transfer. Toronto-type designs displayed more homogeneous stress distribution and lower peak stress values than bar-type frameworks. Under vertical loading, the smallest framework-bone deformation difference was observed in the Toronto-gyroid Co-Cr framework (2.73 μm), and the highest in the bar-gyroid PEEK framework (12.63 μm). Under oblique loading, the Toronto-gyroid Co-Cr model again exhibited the lowest deformation difference (6.67 μm), while the bar-gyroid PEEK framework showed the highest (16.87 μm).
conclusionsThe Toronto-gyroid Co-Cr and Ti frameworks showed a more balanced load distribution and smaller framework-bone deformation differences under the tested conditions, whereas the PEEK frameworks demonstrated greater 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.