Skip to content
akaturk Academic measurement

Article detail · 2025 · article

Biomechanical evaluation of conventional, zygomatic, zygomatic bone anchored subperiosteal and maxilla anchored subperiosteal implants applied totally edentulous maxilla: finite element stress analysis

Journal BMC Oral Health
ISSN1472-6831
YÖKSİS OpenAlex Open access · gold Top 10%
Year2025
Citations4OpenAlex
Citations5Semantic Scholar · 1 influential
Percentile%93.3
FWCI3.971.00 = world average
Scopus (SJR)Q1
WoS (JCR)Q1

Data source split

  • YÖKSİSYÖKSİS article record
  • YÖKSİS venueBMC Oral Health
  • Catalog match (ISSN)BMC Oral Health
  • OpenAlexOpenAlex enrichment (abstract, citations, topics)
  • Semantic Scholarcitation count (not merged with OpenAlex)

Abstract

OpenAlex English

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the stress distribution under occlusal forces by using finite element analysis (FEA) to compare conventional, zygomatic, and differently designed subperiosteal implants (SI) in edentulous atrophic maxilla. METHODS: A 3D model of an edentulous atrophic maxilla was reconstructed from CT scans. Three models were simulated: Model 1 with zygoma and conventional implants, Model 2 with apertura piriformis and subperiosteal implants extending to the zygomaticomaxillary buttress, and Model 3 with apertura piriformis and subperiosteal implants covering the zygomatic buttress. Mechanical properties were assigned according to the literature; 150 Newton (N) force per tooth was applied for occlusal loading, and 100 N force was applied for oblique loading. RESULTS: When the highest tensile (Pmax) and compressive (Pmin) stresses in the bone under vertical and oblique forces were examined, the highest stress was observed in Model 1, and the lowest was observed in Model 3. The von Mises stress values observed in the metal substructure were the highest in Model 1 and the lowest in Model 3. The von Mises stress in the abutments and implants was highest in Model 3 and lowest in Model 1. When the subperiosteal implant screws were examined, more von Mises stress was observed in the subperiosteal implant screws used in Model 3 than in those used in Model 2. Among the three different treatment options applied in the atrophic maxilla, the highest stress in the bone occurred in the conventional and zygomatic implants, and the lowest stress occurred in the subperiosteal implant with a zygomatic bone anchor. CONCLUSIONS: Different types and designs of implants may be alternatives to advanced surgical methods in the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillary lesions. This study underscores the importance of implant and bone design in choosing optimal anchorage zones, particularly in cases of severe bone loss in the edentulous maxilla. In light of these findings, we recommend implant systems that are specially developed for appropriate rehabilitation in the atrophic edentulous maxilla.

Topics

Citations

OpenAlex cited_by_count. Not a WoS or Scopus citation count; those sources have no separate column here.

4citationsOpenAlex · cited_by_count (cache / database)

5 publications in the local catalog that cite this work (OpenAlex reference match; not the full global list).

  1. 2025 Biomechanical evaluation of prosthetic framework materials in subperiosteal implants: a finite element analysisCitations 4 · OpenAlex
  2. 2026 Finite Element Analysis of Different Fixation Configurations After Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in Bruxism: Biomechanical Effects of Botulinum Toxin ACitations 3 · OpenAlex
  3. 2026 Finite Element Analysis of Different Fixation Configurations After Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in Bruxism: Biomechanical Effects of Botulinum Toxin ACitations 3 · OpenAlex
  4. 2026 Biomechanical evaluation of different implant configurations in the severely atrophic maxilla: A three-dimensional finite element analysisCitations 0 · OpenAlex
  5. 2026 Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Implant Configurations in the Severely Atrophic Maxilla: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element AnalysisCitations 0 · OpenAlex

Authors

2
  1. BERİVAN DENİZ ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ 1
  2. MEHMET EMRE YURTTUTAN ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ 2