Withdrawn: Comparison of Fit Accuracy between Procera Custom Abutments and Three Implant Systems
Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.
Dossier post-publication
- Nature
- Retraction
- Motif
- Duplication of Content through Error by Journal/Publisher;
- Date
- 4/1/2016 0:00
- Signalé par OpenAlex ?
- Oui
Source : Retraction Watch, jointe par DOI. OpenAlex consigne la rétractation dans is_retracted, un booléen sur un espace d'états à au moins quatre valeurs ; il ne peut donc exprimer ni une expression de préoccupation, ni une correction, ni un rétablissement, et les rapporte comme false, ce qui se lit comme « rien à signaler ».
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although increase of misfit has been reported when associating implant and abutment from different manufacturers, Procera custom abutment has been universally used in clinical practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the vertical gap of zirconia Procera® abutment associated with implants from the same manufacturer (Procera manufacturer) and two other implant systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four zirconia Procera abutments were produced using computer-assisted design and manufacture and paired with (a) eight MK III, RP 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Nobel Biocare™, Göteborg, Sweden) - GNB group (Nobel Biocare group); (b) eight Try on, 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Sistema de Implantes, São Paulo, Brazil) - ES group (SIN experimental group) ; and (c) eight Master screw, 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Conexão® Sistema de Prótese, São Paulo, Brazil) - EC group (Conexão experimental group). A comparison of the vertical misfit at the implant-abutment interface was taken at six measuring sites on each sample using scanning electron microscopy with a magnification of 408×. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for differences, and Tukey's test was used for pair-wise comparison of groups (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences relative to average misfit were found when Procera abutments were associated with other implant manufacturers. The ES group and EC group did not differ significantly, but both demonstrated significantly larger average misfit than the GNB group (p = .001). The average misfit was 5.7 µm ± 0.39, 9.53 µm ± 0.52, and 10.62 µm ± 2.16, respectively, for groups GNB, ES, and EC. CONCLUSION: The association of Procera zirconia abutment with other implant systems different from its manufacturer demonstrated significant alteration of vertical misfit at implant-abutment interface.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
La notice
- Revue
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
- Thématique
- Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
- Domaine
- Dentistry
- Établissements canadiens
- —
- Organismes subventionnaires
- —
- Mots-clés
- ProceraAbutmentImplantDentistryDental AbutmentsOrthodonticsCubic zirconiaMaterials scienceMathematicsDental prosthesisMedicineEngineeringSurgeryComposite materialBiologyStructural engineeringCeramic
- Résumé présent dans OpenAlex
- oui