ArticleBMC oral health2026
Biomechanical comparison of titanium and Y-TZP subperiosteal implants in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study.
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
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of subperiosteal implant systems manufactured from titanium and yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) materials under different implant thicknesses and screw diameters using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).
methodsEight FEA models were generated from maxillary geometry obtained using computed tomography (CT). Two implant materials (Titanium and Y-TZP), two implant thicknesses (1.0 mm and 1.5 mm), and two screw diameters (1.5 mm and 2.0 mm) were evaluated. Three loading conditions were simulated: bilateral vertical loading of 150 N on premolars and first molar, unilateral oblique loading of 100 N at 30°, and bilateral vertical loading of 150 N on the 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 analyzed.
resultsIncreasing implant thickness reduced stress levels in the bone while increasing stresses within the subperiosteal implant and metal framework. Larger screw diameters decreased stress in the bone and implant but increased stress concentration in the metallic substructure. The higher elastic modulus of Y-TZP reduced stress transmission to the bone; however, higher stresses were observed within the implant body and framework.
conclusionsImplant thickness, screw diameter, and material stiffness influenced the biomechanical behavior of subperiosteal implants. Both materials produced bone stress values below thresholds associated with bone resorption. Y-TZP demonstrated favorable stress distribution in terms of reduced bone stress due to its material properties. In vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies are required to validate its long-term biomechanical performance and clinical applicability in subperiosteal implant systems.
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.