Implants with Original and Non‐Original Abutment Connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To test in vitro the mechanical resistance, rotational misfit and failure mode of three original implant-abutment connections and to compare them to two connections between non-original abutments connected to one of the original implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three different implants with small diameters (3.3 mm for Straumann Roxolid, 3.5 mm for Nobel Biocare Replace and Astra Tech Osseospeed TX) were connected with individualized titanium abutments. Twelve implants from each system were connected to their original abutments (Straumann CARES, Nobel Biocare Procera, Astra Tech Atlantis). Twenty-four Roxolid implants were connected with non-original abutments using CAD/CAM procedures from the other two manufacturers (12 Nobel Biocare Procera and 12 Astra Tech Atlantis). For the critical bending test, a Zwick/Roell 1475 machine and the Xpert Zwick/Roell software were used. RESULTS: The rotational misfit varied when comparing the different interfaces. The use of non-original grade V titanium abutments on Roxolid implants increased the force needed for deformation. The fracture mode was different with one of the original connections. CONCLUSIONS: Non-original abutments differ in design of the connecting surfaces and material and demonstrate higher rotational misfit. These differences may result in unexpected failure modes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".