159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9553888)
1. 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]
2. A photoelastic and strain gauge analysis of angled abutments for an implant system.
Clelland NL; Gilat A; McGlumphy EA; Brantley WA
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1993; 8(5):541-8. PubMed ID: 8112794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Implant design and interface force transfer. A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis.
Cehreli M; Duyck J; De Cooman M; Puers R; Naert I
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2004 Apr; 15(2):249-57. PubMed ID: 15008938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. The effect of abutment angulation on stress transfer for an implant.
Clelland NL; Gilat A
J Prosthodont; 1992 Sep; 1(1):24-8. PubMed ID: 1308216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Transmission of bone strain in the craniofacial bones of edentulous human skulls upon dental implant loading.
Yacoub N; Ismail YH; Mao JJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Aug; 88(2):192-9. PubMed ID: 12397247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis of interface force transmission of internal-cone implants.
Akça K; Cehreli MC
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2008 Aug; 28(4):391-9. PubMed ID: 18717378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. A comparison of stress and strain distribution characteristics of two different rigid implant designs for distal-extension fixed prostheses.
Akpinar I; Demirel F; Parnas L; Sahin S
Quintessence Int; 1996 Jan; 27(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9063207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of abutment angulation on the strain on the bone around an implant in the anterior maxilla: a finite element study.
Saab XE; Griggs JA; Powers JM; Engelmeier RL
J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Feb; 97(2):85-92. PubMed ID: 17341376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A finite element analysis of two different dental implants: stress distribution in the prosthesis, abutment, implant, and supporting bone.
Quaresma SE; Cury PR; Sendyk WR; Sendyk C
J Oral Implantol; 2008; 34(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 18390236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of non-linear finite element stress analysis with in vitro strain gauge measurements on a Morse taper implant.
Iplikçioğlu H; Akça K; Cehreli MC; Sahin S
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2003; 18(2):258-65. PubMed ID: 12705305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Distribution of peri-implant stresses with a countertorque device.
Sendyk CL; Lopez TT; de Araujo CA; Sendyk WR; Goncalvez VF
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(2):e98-e105. PubMed ID: 23527374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Alveolar bone stress around implants with different abutment angulation: an FE-analysis of anterior maxilla.
Sadrimanesh R; Siadat H; Sadr-Eshkevari P; Monzavi A; Maurer P; Rashad A
Implant Dent; 2012 Jun; 21(3):196-201. PubMed ID: 22513498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
