Comparison of Different Frameworks and Implant Angulations in All‐On‐Four and Six Concepts: A Finite Element Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the biomechanical behaviors in the all-on-four and all-on-six concept prostheses of different framework materials (cobalt-chromium Co-Cr, titanium Ti, and polyetheretherketone PEEK) and posterior implant angulation in the completely edentulous maxilla. MATERIAL AND METHODS: According to the all-on-four and all-on-six concepts, four different three-dimensional (3D) models were created for the completely edentulous maxilla. The posterior implants were positioned in the premolar region, 30° and 45° angled distally. The frameworks were designed and simulated using the material properties of Co-Cr, Ti, and PEEK. A load of 200 N in the palatobuccal direction was applied to the occlusal surface of the posterior implants bilaterally. The von Mises, maximum, and minimum principal stresses were obtained. RESULTS: In both concepts, the stress values of the PEEK framework were significantly higher than the stress values of Co-Cr and Ti frameworks in terms of implant, cortical bone, and abutment. The highest von Mises value between frameworks was determined in the Co-Cr framework in the all-on-six concept. Implants with a 45° angle in the posterior showed higher stress values than implants with a 30° angle. CONCLUSION: As the number of implants increased, the stress on the implant and cortical bone decreased, while it increased on the abutment and prosthetic framework. The increase in the tilt angle of the posterior implants was directly proportional to the rise in stress concentration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".