|
| Authors | Type of prosthesis | The examined independent variable | Materials used in the denture | Reported dependent variable | Outcome |
| Stress | Displacement deflection |
|
| Rodrigues et al. 2021 [74] | Maxillary class I | Two 3D models of two different materials | Two materials
(i) Co-Cr
(ii) Thermoplastic nylon (flexible denture) | √ | √ | (i) In both models, the maximum stress has been shown on the slopes of the maxillary arch
(ii) The maximum displacement has been shown on the crest of the residual alveolar ridge
(iii) The Co-Cr showed the least stress and displacement compared with nylon |
| Chen et al. 2019 [66] | Mandibular class I | Three models for three different materials | 3 materials
(i) Co-Cr
(ii) Ti alloy
(iii) PEEK | | | (i) The lowest stress in the PDL of the abutment and framework was reported with PEEK
(ii) PEEK has exhibited the highest displacement of the ridge and mucosa |
| Hallikerimath et al. 2015 [72] | Maxillary class II RPD | Five 3D models of different palatal vaults (average, wide, narrow, deep, and shallow) | Co-Cr | — | √ | (i) The maximum distal displacement was reported in the wide and shallow palate, while maximum buccal displacements were higher in the deep palate
(ii) Maximum vertical displacement was higher in the average model
(iii)The deflection was lesser in the narrow palate compared to the other palatal shapes |
| Bhojaraju et al. 2014 [69] | Different scenarios of maxillary RPD | Six 3D models of 3 different maxillary MC (PS, CPP, APPS) with different scenarios of Kennedy classification | Co-Cr | — | √ | (i) APPS showed the lowest deflection compared with CPP and PS
(ii) For APPS, the maximum deflection was reported in the occlusal rest responding to load with anteroposterior direction and the anterior part of buccal slope regarding vertical direction
(iii) For CPP, the maximum deflection has been reported in the occlusal rest regarding anteroposterior load and the buccal slope and crest of the ridge regarding vertical force |
| Ramakrishnan & Singh 2010 [71] | Maxillary class IV | Four 3D models of U-shape PB (regular, increasing the width, adding posterior PS, and duplicating the thickness to 1 mm) | Co-Cr | √ | √ | (i) The PB with a regular width showed the maximum deflection and displacement compared with the other forms
(ii) The double-thickness U-shape MC exhibited the lowest stress followed by wide U-shape MC
(iii) The highest stress on the palate and teeth has been shown in double thickness as well
(iv) The lowest stress on the palate and mucosa has been reported in the scenario of wide MC |
| Takanashi et al. 2009 [73] | Maxillary class II | Five 3D models of different palatal vaults (basic, wide, narrow, deep, and shallow) | Three materials were used:
(i) Co-Cr
(ii) Titanium (Ti–6Al–7Nb) (iii) Gold alloy (type IV) | — | √ | (i) In all tested MC models, the narrow model has reported the lowest displacement when compared with the basic, wide, and shallow palates, which exhibited the maximum displacement
(ii) In the deep palate model, the Ti MC with a width of 11 mm and gold MC with a width of 9 mm showed similar displacement to the basic model |
| Eto et al. 2002 [70] | Maxillary class II RPD | In 13 3D models, 11 of them show PS MC with different AP widths at the midlines, 1 design for APPB, and lastly, horseshoe PS with 7 mm | Co-Cr | — | √ | (i) The maximum displacement has been shown in all models at the posterior edge of the saddle
(ii) Vertical and buccal displacements were inversely proportional to the width of the major connector. As the major connector increased, the displacement decreased
(iii) APPB and wide PS exhibited the lowest buccal displacement compared with horseshoes, which showed the maximum displacement (least rigidity) |
|
