Retention Forces between Titanium and Zirconia Components of Two‐Part Implant Abutments with Different Techniques of Surface Modification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adhesive connection between titanium base and zirconia coping of two-part abutments may be responsible for the failure rate. A high mechanical stability between both components is essential for the long-term success. PURPOSE: The aim of the present in-vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different surface modification techniques and resin-based luting agents on the retention forces between titanium and zirconia components in two-part implant abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 abutments with a titanium base bonded to a zirconia coping were investigated. Two different resin-based luting agents (Panavia F 2.0 and RelyX Unicem) and six different surface modifications were used to fix these components, resulting in 12 test groups (n = 10). The surface of the test specimens was mechanically pretreated with aluminium oxide blasting in combination with application of two surface activating primers (Alloy Primer, Clearfil Ceramic Primer) or a tribological conditioning (Rocatec), respectively. All specimens underwent 10,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C in a moist environment. A pull-off test was then conducted to determine retention forces between the titanium and zirconia components, and statistical analysis was performed (two-way anova). Finally, fracture surfaces were analyzed by light and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between Panavia F 2.0 and RelyX Unicem. However, the retention forces were significantly influenced by the surface modification technique used (p < 0.001). For both luting agents, the highest retention forces were found when adhesion surfaces of both the titanium bases and the zirconia copings were pretreated with aluminium oxide blasting, and with the application of Clearfil Ceramic Primer. CONCLUSION: Surface modification techniques crucially influence the retention forces between titanium and zirconia components in two-part implant abutments. All adhesion surfaces should be pretreated by sandblasting. Moreover, a phosphate-based primer serves to enhance long-term retention of the components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".