Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKılıç, Sergen
dc.contributor.authorÇağlar, İpek
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-13T12:09:36Z
dc.date.available2025-06-13T12:09:36Z
dc.date.issued2025en_US
dc.identifier.citationKilic, S., & Caglar, I. (2024). An Investigation of Stress Distribution Between Two Different Implant Concept in Implant-Supported Maxillary Prostheses with Different Framework Materials: A Finite Element Study. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 38(3), 331-338. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9268en_US
dc.identifier.issn0893-2174
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9268
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11436/10406
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare the stress distribution between the all-on-4 and all-on-6 treatment concepts with various prosthetic-framework materials through finite element analysis. Materials and Methods: A 3D finite-element model of an edentulous maxilla was simulated using computerized topographic data of a patient. Four implants were placed according to the all-on-4 concept. In addition to the all-on-4 concept, two more axial implants were placed in the anterior region to create the all-on-6 concept. Four framework materials were investigated: cobalt-chromium (CoCr), zirconia (Zr), titanium (Ti), and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Simultaneously, a 100-N load was applied to the anterior region, a 150-N oblique load was applied to the premolars, and a 200-N oblique load was applied to the molars. Principal stresses in bone and von Mises stresses in the implants and frameworks were calculated and compared. Results: The all-on-6 concept showed lower von Mises stress values on the implants and frameworks and lower principal stress values on the bone than the all-on-4 concept. PEEK exhibited the highest stress values on bone and implants, while CoCr showed the lowest stress values. Conclusions: Stress distribution was influenced by the framework materials. The use of a framework material with the appropriate physical properties for the correct indication might be particularly important in determining the success of the implant-supported prostheses.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherQuintessence Publishing Co. Inc.en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBenzophenonesen_US
dc.subjectChromium alloysen_US
dc.subjectDental implantsen_US
dc.subjectDental materialsen_US
dc.subjectDental prosthesis designen_US
dc.titleInvestigation of stress distribution between two different implant concepts in implant-supported maxillary prostheses with different framework materials: a finite element studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentRTEÜ, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Klinik Bilimler Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorKılıç, Sergen
dc.contributor.institutionauthorÇağlar, İpek
dc.identifier.doi10.11607/ijp.9268en_US
dc.identifier.volume38en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage331en_US
dc.identifier.endpage338en_US
dc.relation.journalInternational Journal of Prosthodonticsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record