MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Three‐Dimensional Image Correlation Analyses for Strains Generated by Cement and Screw‐Retained Implant Prostheses

2011· article· en· W1567986010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nancy Clelland, Burak Yılmaz, Jeremy D. Seidt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrain gaugeDigital image correlationMaterials sciencevon Mises yield criterionImplantCementMolarStrain (injury)OrthodonticsBiomedical engineeringDentistryComposite materialStructural engineeringMedicineFinite element methodEngineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study aimed to measure and compare strains generated by splinted implant crowns retained by cement or screws for two implants with applied load. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A stereolithic resin model was printed using computed tomography data from a patient missing all mandibular molar teeth. Two 4 × 6 mm implants were consecutively placed in the left side. One set of splinted cement and screw-retained crowns were made to fit the two implants. Image correlation technique was used for full-field measurement of strains using an image correlation software and two synchronized high-resolution digital cameras. A random dot pattern was applied to the model surface. Cameras recorded changes in random dot patterns as prostheses were loaded up to 400 N in vertical and oblique directions using a universal testing machine. Testing was repeated three times for cement and screw-retained prostheses. An image correlation algorithm used the dot pattern to define correlation areas or virtual strain gauge boxes. Three-dimensional coordinates of gauge box centers were determined for each recorded photograph and used to calculate strains. Strain distribution data were compared for major, minor, and von Mises strains for each loading condition, as well as peak and average strains for the field of view using an analysis of variance (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Patterns and magnitudes of strain for cement- and screw-retained splinted crowns were similar under vertical loading. Neither peak nor mean strains were significantly different for the two retention methods. For oblique loading, peak strains were lower for the screw-retained crowns; however, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups when strains were averaged throughout the entire field of view. CONCLUSIONS: Cement retention did not improve the magnitude of transferred strains for splinted implant crowns using either loading condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.305
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→