Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of All‐Ceramic Single Tooth Implant Reconstructions Using Modified Zirconia Abutments: Radiographic and Prosthetic Results at 1 Year of Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to test whether or not veneering of the submucosal part of zirconia abutments with pink dental ceramic affects radiographic and technical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (ISSC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single tooth implants were randomly restored with either pink-veneered zirconia abutments (test; n = 10) or non-veneered zirconia abutments (control group; n = 10) and all-ceramic crowns. At baseline (crown insertion), and 6- and 12-month radiographic and technical evaluations were performed including standardized x-rays and modified United States Public Health Service criteria (technical). Survival and complication rates were assessed for implants and restorations. Robust linear mixed model analysis was performed to investigate the effect of group and time-point on radiographic outcomes. RESULTS: At 1 year, the survival rate for implants was 100% and 95% for ISSC. Most of the implants were placed subcrestally. Therefore, mean marginal bone levels decreased in both groups between implant insertion and baseline (p < .05), but then remained stable up to 1 year (test: 0.15 mm ± 0.42 mm; control 0.23 mm ± 0.63 mm) (p > .005). At 6 months, one minor chipping occurred in the test group. At 1 year, three crowns (control) exhibited occlusal roughness. In addition, one abutment fracture occurred (test). The differences between test and control group were not statistically significantly different for any of the evaluated outcome measures (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Veneering of the submucosal part of zirconia abutments did not affect biological and technical outcomes of ISSCs. Technical complications of the reconstructions, however, were frequent, resulting in a rate of 75% of the crowns being complication free.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".