ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative finite element analysis of 3-unit implant-supported bridges restorated with different prosthetic materials in posterior mandible.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the mechanical behaviour and stress distribution characteristics of different prosthetic materials (Co-Cr/porcelain; Zirconia/porcelain; Fibre- reinforced composite/Composite) used in mandibular posterior implant-supported fixed prostheses using finite element analysis (FEA), with particular emphasis on the influence of material stiffness under different loading conditions.
methodsThree-dimensional finite element models of a mandibular first premolar and first molar were constructed. Implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations were simulated using three different restorative materials: metal-supported porcelain (MP), zirconia-supported ceramic (ZP), and fibre-reinforced composite (Trinia-composite, TC). Vertical and oblique occlusal loads were applied to the models. Maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress, and Von Mises stress values were calculated to evaluate stress distribution within the restorative materials and supporting structures.
resultsAcross all models, oblique loading resulted in higher stress concentrations compared with axial loading. The first premolar models exhibited higher stress levels than the first molar models under identical loading conditions. The mechanical behaviour and stress distribution in the fixed prostheses were influenced by the prosthetic material used. Restorations fabricated with MP and ZP demonstrated higher stress values than those restored with TC. The fibre-reinforced composite material showed a more homogeneous stress distribution, indicating a more favourable load-transfer behaviour.
conclusionsAll tested materials generated stress values within physiological limits. The fibre-reinforced polymer-based restoration exhibited improved stress redistribution, most likely due to its elastic compatibility peri-implant structures. These findings suggest that fibre-reinforced composites may offer biomechanical advantages in posterior implant-supported restorations.
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.