A Comparison of Fit of CNC‐Milled Titanium and Zirconia Frameworks to Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computer numeric controlled (CNC) milling was proven to be predictable method to fabricate accurately fitting implant titanium frameworks. However, no data are available regarding the fit of CNC-milled implant zirconia frameworks. PURPOSE: To compare the precision of fit of implant frameworks milled from titanium and zirconia and relate it to peri-implant strain development after framework fixation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partially edentulous epoxy resin models received two Branemark implants in the areas of the lower left second premolar and second molar. From this model, 10 identical frameworks were fabricated by mean of CNC milling. Half of them were made from titanium and the other half from zirconia. Strain gauges were mounted close to the implants to qualitatively and quantitatively assess strain development as a result of framework fitting. In addition, the fit of the framework implant interface was measured using an optical microscope, when only one screw was tightened (passive fit) and when all screws were tightened (vertical fit). The data was statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: All frameworks produced measurable amounts of peri-implant strain. The zirconia frameworks produced significantly less strain than titanium. Combining the qualitative and quantitative information indicates that the implants were under vertical displacement rather than horizontal. The vertical fit was similar for zirconia (3.7 µm) and titanium (3.6 µm) frameworks; however, the zirconia frameworks exhibited a significantly finer passive fit (5.5 µm) than titanium frameworks (13.6 µm). CONCLUSIONS: CNC milling produced zirconia and titanium frameworks with high accuracy. The difference between the two materials in terms of fit is expected to be of minimal clinical significance. The strain developed around the implants was more related to the framework fit rather than framework material.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".