186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8242172)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla.
de Souza Batista VE; Verri FR; Almeida DA; Santiago Junior JF; Lemos CA; Pellizzer EP
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2017 May; 20(6):663-670. PubMed ID: 28349769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Microstrains around standard and mini implants supporting different bridge designs.
Sallam H; Kheiralla LS; Aldawakly A
J Oral Implantol; 2012 Jun; 38(3):221-9. PubMed ID: 20712439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Photoelastic stress analysis of implant-tooth connected prostheses with segmented and nonsegmented abutments.
Ochiai KT; Ozawa S; Caputo AA; Nishimura RD
J Prosthet Dent; 2003 May; 89(5):495-502. PubMed ID: 12806328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. The influence of mandibular deformation, implant numbers, and loading position on detected forces in abutments supporting fixed implant superstructures.
Hobkirk JA; Havthoulas TK
J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Aug; 80(2):169-74. PubMed ID: 9710818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of implant design on the stress distribution in a three-unit implant-supported distal cantilever fixed partial denture: a three-dimensional finite-element analysis.
Koka P; Mohapatra A; Anandapandian PA; Murugesan K; Vasanthakumar M
Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 22945697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Biomechanical analysis of immediately loaded implants according to the "All-on-Four" concept.
Horita S; Sugiura T; Yamamoto K; Murakami K; Imai Y; Kirita T
J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Apr; 61(2):123-132. PubMed ID: 27615425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses.
White SN; Caputo AA; Anderkvist T
J Prosthet Dent; 1994 May; 71(5):493-9. PubMed ID: 8006846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bicortically stabilized implant load transfer.
Jeong CM; Caputo AA; Wylie RS; Son SC; Jeon YC
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2003; 18(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 12608670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of implant framework and mandibular flexure on the strain distribution on a Kennedy class II mandible restored with a long-span implant fixed restoration: a pilot study.
Law C; Bennani V; Lyons K; Swain M
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Jul; 112(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 24388719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Analysis of load transfer and stress distribution by an implant-supported fixed partial denture.
Assif D; Marshak B; Horowitz A
J Prosthet Dent; 1996 Mar; 75(3):285-91. PubMed ID: 8648576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
