| pubmed-article:20236236 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0231441 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0443218 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C2827483 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0021102 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0175649 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0237753 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0520510 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1704229 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1705604 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1704711 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1521721 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1708715 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C2346689 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:issue | 7 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:dateCreated | 2010-6-28 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:abstractText | The purpose of this study is to evaluate axial forces and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a complete arch fixed implant supported prosthesis with respect to number and distribution of the implants and type of prosthesis material. Seven oral Brånemark implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 13 and 7 mm (short distal implant) were placed in an edentulous composite mandible used as the experimental model. One all-acrylic, one fibre-reinforced acrylic, and one milled titanium framework prosthesis were made. A 50 N vertical load was applied on the extension 10 mm distal from the most posterior implant. Axial forces and BMs were measured by calculating signals from three strain gauges attached to each of the abutments. The load was measured using three different models with varying numbers of supporting implants (3, 4 and 5), three models with different implant distribution conditions (small, medium and large) and three models with different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic and fibre-reinforced acrylic). Maximum BMs were highest when prostheses were supported by three implants compared to four and five implants (P < 0.001). The BMs were significantly influenced by the implant distribution, in that the smallest distribution induced the highest BMs (P < 0.001). Maximum BMs were lowest with the titanium prosthesis (P < 0.01). The resultant forces on implants were significantly associated with the implant number and distribution and the prosthesis material. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:citationSubset | D | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:month | Jul | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:issn | 1365-2842 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:SasakiKK | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:OgawaTT | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:MiniEE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:NaertII | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:DhaliwalSS | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:DuyckJokeJ | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:KronstromMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:issnType | Electronic | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:volume | 37 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:pagination | 525-31 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20236236... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:year | 2010 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:articleTitle | Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20236236 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
