Importance of Crown Height Ratios in Dental Implants on the Fracture Strength of Different Connection Designs: An In Vitro Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present in vitro study was to assess the resistance to static fatigue of implants with different connections at various crown heights. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty conical implants and 60 abutments were used with the smallest diameters available for each model. Three groups (n = 20) were established based on the implant connections: Morse taper Ø3.50 mm (group 1), external hexagon Ø3.50 mm (group 2), and internal hexagon Ø3.50 mm (group 3). Four crown heights were tested: h1 = 8 mm, h2 = 10 mm, h3 = 12 mm, and h4 = 14 mm. All groups were subjected to quasi-static loading at a 30° angle to the implant axis in a universal testing machine. RESULTS: The mean fracture strengths for group 1 were 1524 N (h1 ), 1469 N (h2 ), 750 N (h3 ), and 729 N (h4 ). Those for group 2 were 1504 N (h1 ), 814 N (h2 ), 491 N (h3 ), and 325 N (h4 ). Those for group 3 were 1543 N (h1 ), 672 N (h2 ), 403 N (h3 ), and 390 N (h4 ). CONCLUSIONS: Resistance to loading decreases significantly with increasing crown height, and the connection design can affect the performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".