ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Posterior Mandibular Implant Configurations Under Bruxism: An FEA Study.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
This study evaluated the biomechanical performance of different abutment types, superstructure materials, prosthetic designs, and loading conditions in the implant-supported rehabilitation of three consecutive missing teeth in the mandibular posterior region using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Twenty FEA models were constructed, simulating two-implant (pontic, mesial, and distal cantilever) and three-implant (splinted and unsplinted) configurations using multi-unit and Ti-base abutments composed of titanium alloy (Grade 5, Ti-6Al-4V), with monolithic zirconia and zirconia-supported feldspathic porcelain superstructures. Functional and parafunctional (bruxism) vertical and oblique loads were applied to analyze von Mises stresses in the components and principal stresses in the peri-implant bone. The results indicated that two-implant models generated higher stress concentrations than three-implant models, and unsplinted or cantilevered designs produced elevated stresses compared to splinted or pontic designs. Ti-base abutments resulted in greater stress accumulation in the connection complex compared to multi-unit systems. Under vertical and oblique parafunctional forces, stress values on the abutments in distal cantilever models-particularly in unsplinted Ti-base designs under oblique loading-exceeded the yield strength of the Ti-6Al-4V alloy (890 MPa), indicating a substantial risk of plastic deformation. To optimize biomechanical stability, three-implant-supported, splinted designs utilizing Multi-unit abutments should be prioritized. Avoiding distal cantilevers and unsplinted designs is critical in patients with bruxism to minimize the risk of mechanical failure in the Ti-6Al-4V components.
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.