Skip to main content

Table 3 Detailed stress values (MPa) for all models and regions of interest expressed as mean and standard error values

From: The effect of frontal trauma on the edentulous mandible with four different interforaminal implant-prosthodontic anchoring configurations. A 3D finite element analysis

Configuration

ROI I

ROI II

ROI III

ROI IV

2IF-U:

48.5 ± 11.8

38.8 ± 11.9

45.8 ± 16.7

91 ± 60.2

2IF-S:

46.9 ± 11.7

38.5 ± 11.4

45.1 ± 16.4

91.5 ± 59.4

4IF-U:

42.8 ± 10.7

33.2 ± 8.7

55.9 ± 17.9

70.4 ± 46.4

4IF-S:

31.5 ± 9.9

29.7 ± 6.1

54.1 ± 18.1

69.5 ± 46.3

Comparison: P-value

4IF-S vs 4IF-U

0.001

0.129

0.764

0.996

4IF-S vs 2IF-S

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

4IF-S vs 2IF-U

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

4IF-U vs 2IF-S

0.043

0.012

0.001

0.001

4IF-U vs 2IF U

0.001

0.03

0.001

0.001

2IF-S vs 2IF U

0.857

 > 0.999

 > 0.999

 > 0.999

  1. 2IF-U edentulous mandible model with two unsplinted interforaminal implants, 2IF-S edentulous mandible model with two splinted interforaminal implants, 4IF-U edentulous mandible model with four unsplinted interforaminal implants, 4IF-S edentulous mandible model with four splinted interforaminal implants