ArticleBMC oral health2026
Stress distribution in different tooth-implant supported mandibular prostheses rehabilitating unilateral free-end saddle: a biomechanical comparative 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of the studyUtilizing Finite Element Analysis, this research biomechanically assessed three prosthetic designs for mandibular unilateral free-end saddle, specifically interrogating the magnitude and distribution of stresses transmitted to the terminal anterior abutment and the supporting posterior implant. MATERIALS AND
methodsA mandibular unilateral free-end saddle educational cast, with the first premolar as the last standing abutment tooth, was used. The abutment teeth of the free end saddle side were prepared to accommodate two splinted crowns. Then the cast was scanned, and an implant analogue was digitally inserted at the second molar area using Blender4dental software. Three different treatment modalities were digitally designed and collected using Blender4dental software, then grouped as follows: Group 1: Tooth-Implant supported fixed-fixed bridge. Group 2: OT vertical attachment retained removable bridge. Group 3: Double OT cap retained removable partial denture. The preparatory stage involved editing the STL file within the Meshmixer software environment. Subsequent finite element analysis FEA was performed using Abaqus, where specific occlusal loads were applied over the area to be examined: 200 N (vertical) and 23.5 N (tangential) on the molars, and 140 N (vertical) and 16.45 N (tangential) on the canines and premolars. The von Misses stress levels induced around the anterior abutments, at the residual ridge area, and around the implant were measured and compared.
resultsRegarding the stresses exerted by the whole design, it was found that, the lowest stresses were found with design 3 (Double OT cap retained removable partial denture), while the highest stresses were found with design 2 (OT vertical attachment retained removable bridge). Regarding von-Mises stresses on the prepared abutments and the residual ridge, the lowest von Mises stresses were found in design 3, while the highest von Mises stresses were found in design 1 (Tooth-Implant supported fixed-fixed bridge). Regarding von-Mises stresses on the implant, the lowest Von Mises stresses were found in design 3, while the highest Von Mises stresses were found in design 2.
conclusionRPD restored by double OT and ball and socket attachment exerted the least stress on the abutment, the residual ridge, and the implant; this design is recommended to be used with weak abutments, flat ridge, and\ or with imperfect implant stability. The fixed bridge design showed the highest stresses exerted on the anterior abutments and the residual ridge due to the absence of resiliency between the crowns and the teeth. This design could be indicated with strong abutments and well-formed ridges. OT vertical attachment retained removable bridge design showed the highest stresses exerted on the posterior implant, carrying a slight torquing force, resulting in more load concentration on the implant compared to the other two designs.
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.