180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25830403)
1. Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of two full-arch rehabilitations supported by four or five implants.
Francetti L; Cavalli N; Villa T; La Barbera L; Taschieri S; Corbella S; Del Fabbro M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(2):419-26. PubMed ID: 25830403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical comparison of axial and tilted implants for mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses.
Kim KS; Kim YL; Bae JM; Cho HW
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(5):976-84. PubMed ID: 22010079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Stress Analysis of Axial and Tilted Implants in Full-arch Fixed Dentures Under Different Abutment Conditions.
Mazaro JV; da Silva CR; Filho HG; Zavanelli AC; de Mello CC; Lemos CA; Pellizzer EP
J Craniofac Surg; 2016 May; 27(3):e249-52. PubMed ID: 26999691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Implant-bone load transfer mechanisms in complete-arch prostheses supported by four implants: a three-dimensional finite element approach.
Baggi L; Pastore S; Di Girolamo M; Vairo G
J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Jan; 109(1):9-21. PubMed ID: 23328192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of strain at the terminal abutment site of a fixed mandibular implant prosthesis during cantilever loading.
Rodriguez AM; Aquilino SA; Lund PS; Ryther JS; Southard TE
J Prosthodont; 1993 Jun; 2(2):93-102. PubMed ID: 8242172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of the number of abutments on biomechanics of Branemark prosthesis with straight and tilted distal implants.
Naconecy MM; Geremia T; Cervieri A; Teixeira ER; Shinkai RS
J Appl Oral Sci; 2010; 18(2):178-85. PubMed ID: 20485930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of Connection Types and Implant Number on the Biomechanical Behavior of Mandibular Full-Arch Rehabilitation.
Sousa RM; Simamoto-Junior PC; Fernandes-Neto AJ; Sloten JV; Jaecques SV; Pessoa RS
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2016; 31(4):750-60. PubMed ID: 27447140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of tilted versus nontilted implant-supported prosthetic designs for the restoration of the edentuous mandible: a biomechanical study.
Bellini CM; Romeo D; Galbusera F; Taschieri S; Raimondi MT; Zampelis A; Francetti L
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(3):511-7. PubMed ID: 19587875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Investigation of influence of different implant size and placement on stress distribution with 3-dimensional finite element analysis.
Balkaya MC
Implant Dent; 2014 Dec; 23(6):716-22. PubMed ID: 25290280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of different implant configurations for a mandibular fixed prosthesis.
Fazi G; Tellini S; Vangi D; Branchi R
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(4):752-9. PubMed ID: 21841984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of strain generated in bone by "platform-switched" and "non-platform-switched" implants with straight and angulated abutments under vertical and angulated load: a finite element analysis study.
Paul S; Padmanabhan TV; Swarup S
Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 23852226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of resilient abutment components on measured strain using dynamic loading conditions.
Morton D; Stanford CM; Aquilino SA
J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Jul; 80(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 9656177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical Comparison of Different Implant Inclinations and Cantilever Lengths in All-on-4 Treatment Concept by Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.
Ozan O; Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2018; 33(1):64-71. PubMed ID: 29340344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Deformation of implant abutments after framework connection using strain gauges.
Hollweg H; Jacques LB; da Silva Moura M; Bianco VC; Souza EA; Rubo JH
J Oral Implantol; 2012 Apr; 38(2):125-32. PubMed ID: 22568468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A strain gauge analysis comparing external and internal implant-abutment connections.
Asvanund P
Implant Dent; 2014 Apr; 23(2):206-11. PubMed ID: 24614880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Straight and offset implant placement under axial and nonaxial loads in implant-supported prostheses: strain gauge analysis.
Abreu CW; Nishioka RS; Balducci I; Consani RL
J Prosthodont; 2012 Oct; 21(7):535-9. PubMed ID: 22905920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Micromovement Evaluation of Original and Compatible Abutments at the Implant-abutment Interface.
Berberi A; Maroun D; Kanj W; Amine EZ; Philippe A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Nov; 17(11):907-913. PubMed ID: 27965499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The influence of abutment angulation on strains and stresses along the implant/bone interface: comparison between two experimental techniques.
Brosh T; Pilo R; Sudai D
J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Mar; 79(3):328-34. PubMed ID: 9553888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Microstrain around dental implants supporting fixed partial prostheses under axial and non-axial loading conditions, in vitro strain gauge analysis.
de Vasconcellos LG; Nishioka RS; de Vasconcellos LM; Balducci I; Kojima AN
J Craniofac Surg; 2013 Nov; 24(6):e546-51. PubMed ID: 24220463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Telescopic magnetic attachment for implant-supported denture: evaluation of splint effect.
Chen J; Tomotake Y; Watanabe M; Ishida Y; Nagao K; Ichikawa T
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(3):657-64. PubMed ID: 21691614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
