ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Biomechanical evaluation of narrow-diameter Ti-Zr implant systems at different lingual inclination angles in the molar region.
Article in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Narrow-diameter implants may be considered in posterior sites with limited bone volume, while lingual inclination may help avoid anatomical constraints. However, their biomechanical behavior under different loading directions remains unclear. Objective: To compare the system-level biomechanical responses of a 3.3 × 12 mm titanium-zirconium implant configuration and a 4.1 × 10 mm commercially pure titanium implant configuration at different lingual inclination angles. Methods: Three-dimensional finite element models were constructed for both implant systems at 0°, 5°, 10°, 15°, and 20°. A 150 N vertical load and a 150 N load applied at 30° to the prosthetic crown axis were simulated. Implant von Mises stress and cortical and cancellous bone maximum principal stress were evaluated. Formal mesh convergence analysis was performed using three mesh densities. Exploratory fatigue analysis and Results: Mesh convergence showed less than 5% change between the medium and fine meshes for all primary stress outcomes. Under vertical loading, implant stress decreased from 0° to 10° and then showed modest fluctuations. Oblique loading increased implant and peri-implant bone stresses in all configurations, with generally greater amplification at larger inclination angles. Implant stress remained lower at 10° than at 0° under both loading conditions, whereas cortical bone stress increased across the same range. Conclusions: Inclination-related responses depended on loading direction and the evaluated biomechanical outcome. The 0°-10° range should not be interpreted as uniformly favorable or clinically recommended. Because the systems differed in material, diameter, length, and geometry, the findings represent system-level comparisons.
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.