162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36335327)
1. Biomechanical analysis of stress around the tilted implants with different cantilever lengths in all-on-4 concept.
Wang Q; Zhang ZZ; Bai SZ; Zhang SF
BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov; 22(1):469. PubMed ID: 36335327
[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. 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]
4. Tilting of splinted implants for improved prosthodontic support: a two-dimensional finite element analysis.
Zampelis A; Rangert B; Heijl L
J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Jun; 97(6 Suppl):S35-43. PubMed ID: 17618932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Load transfer in tilted implants with varying cantilever lengths in an all-on-four situation.
Malhotra AO; Padmanabhan TV; Mohamed K; Natarajan S; Elavia U
Aust Dent J; 2012 Dec; 57(4):440-5. PubMed ID: 23186568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Short Implants with Different Treatment Approaches in the Atrophic Mandible.
Doganay O; Kilic E
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2020; 35(4):e69-e76. PubMed ID: 32724926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Marginal fit and photoelastic stress analysis of CAD-CAM and overcast 3-unit implant-supported frameworks.
Presotto AG; Bhering CL; Mesquita MF; Barão VA
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):373-379. PubMed ID: 27666497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Biomechanical analysis of inclined and cantilever design with different implant framework materials in mandibular complete-arch implant restorations.
Yu W; Li X; Ma X; Xu X
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 May; 127(5):783.e1-783.e10. PubMed ID: 35305832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effects of Cantilever Length and Implant Inclination on the Stress Distribution of Mandibular Prosthetic Restorations Constructed from Monolithic Zirconia Ceramic.
Durkan R; Oyar P; Deste G
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2020; 35(1):121-129. PubMed ID: 31923295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Analysis of the effect of mesial implant position on surrounding bone stress of mandibular edentulous jaw under dynamic loads].
Li Y; Sun C; Jia H; Luo XJ
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2017 Nov; 52(11):672-677. PubMed ID: 29972946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Stress patterns around distal angled implants in the all-on-four concept configuration.
Begg T; Geerts GA; Gryzagoridis J
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(4):663-71. PubMed ID: 19885406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A Comparative Analysis on Two Types of Oral Implants, Bone-Level and Tissue-Level, with Different Cantilever Lengths of Fixed Prosthesis.
Mosavar A; Nili M; Hashemi SR; Kadkhodaei M
J Prosthodont; 2017 Jun; 26(4):289-295. PubMed ID: 26662575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Tilted or parallel implant placement in the completely edentulous mandible? A three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Naini RB; Nokar S; Borghei H; Alikhasi M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(4):776-81. PubMed ID: 21841987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Stress Analysis on Single Cobalt/Chrome Prosthesis With a 15-mm Cantilever Placed Over 10/13/15-mm-length Implants: A Simulated Photoelastic Model Study.
Gastaldo JF; Pimentel AC; Gomes MH; Sendyk WR; Laganá DC
J Oral Implantol; 2015 Dec; 41(6):706-11. PubMed ID: 24914673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Photoelastic analysis of all-on-four concept using different implants angulations for maxilla.
Cidade CP; Pimentel MJ; Amaral RC; Nóbilo MA; Barbosa JR
Braz Oral Res; 2014; 28():. PubMed ID: 25229789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of the design of a mandibular implant-supported zirconia prosthesis on stress distribution.
Oyar P; Durkan R; Deste G
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):502.e1-502.e11. PubMed ID: 32893017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of immediately loaded mandibular four vertical versus tilted posterior implants supporting fixed detachable restorations without versus with posterior cantilevers.
Mohamed LA; Khamis MM; El-Sharkawy AM; Fahmy RA
Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Sep; 26(3):373-381. PubMed ID: 34455503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
