MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abutment Design for Implant‐Supported Indirect Composite Molar Crowns: Reliability and Fractography

2012· article· en· W1924693882 on OpenAlex
Estevam A. Bonfante, Marcelo Suzuki, William Lubelski, Van P. Thompson, Ricardo M. Carvalho, Lukasz Witek, Paulo G. Coelho

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsMaterials scienceFractographyAbutmentWeibull distributionWeibull modulusCrown (dentistry)MolarComposite materialScanning electron microscopeStress (linguistics)Composite numberDentistryOrthodonticsStructural engineeringMathematicsMedicineFlexural strengthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate the reliability of titanium abutments veneered with indirect composites for implant-supported crowns and the possibility to trace back the fracture origin by qualitative fractographic analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Large base (LB) (6.4-mm diameter base, with a 4-mm high cone in the center for composite retention), small base (SB-4) (5.2-mm base, 4-mm high cone), and small base with cone shortened to 2 mm (SB-2) Ti abutments were used. Each abutment received incremental layers of indirect resin composite until completing the anatomy of a maxillary molar crown. Step-stress accelerated-life fatigue testing (n = 18 each) was performed in water. Weibull curves with use stress of 200 N for 50,000 and 100,000 cycles were calculated. Probability Weibull plots examined the differences between groups. Specimens were inspected in light-polarized and scanning electron microscopes for fractographic analysis. RESULTS: Use level probability Weibull plots showed Beta values of 0.27 for LB, 0.32 for SB-4, and 0.26 for SB-2, indicating that failures were not influenced by fatigue and damage accumulation. The data replotted as Weibull distribution showed no significant difference in the characteristic strengths between LB (794 N) and SB-4 abutments (836 N), which were both significantly higher than SB-2 (601 N). Failure mode was cohesive within the composite for all groups. Fractographic markings showed that failures initiated at the indentation area and propagated toward the margins of cohesively failed composite. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability was not influenced by abutment design. Qualitative fractographic analysis of the failed indirect composite was feasible.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.284 · 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