ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of biomechanical performance of custom implants with different designs under functional load: 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
objectiveRehabilitation of severely atrophic edentulous maxillae is clinically challenging because of limited bone volume and the constraints of conventional implants. Recent advances in digital planning and additive manufacturing have increased interest in patient-specific titanium subperiosteal implants. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical performance of 6 titanium subperiosteal implant designs for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation.
methodsA three-dimensional atrophic maxilla model was reconstructed from Visible Human Project tomography data. 6 subperiosteal implant designs, comprising three single-piece and three 2-piece configurations, were modeled using CAD software. Abutments were positioned at the 2nd, 4th, and 6th tooth regions. Vertical (150 N) and oblique (50 N at 30°) masticatory loads were applied. All materials were assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic. Maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress, and von Mises stress distributions were evaluated in the implant, abutment, prosthetic framework, and surrounding bone.
resultsStress distribution patterns were comparable under vertical and oblique loading. Single-piece designs exhibited lower von Mises stress values within the implant, whereas 2-piece designs showed reduced stress transfer to the surrounding bone. Mesh-type designs generated the highest implant stresses but lower stresses in the abutment, prosthetic framework, and bone. Peak cortical bone stresses remained within physiologically acceptable limits and were mainly concentrated in the nasal buttress region.
conclusionSubperiosteal implant biomechanics are strongly influenced by design and configuration. Single-piece designs favor implant-level stress reduction, while 2-piece designs appear advantageous for minimizing bone stress.
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.