Mechanical Behavior and Failure Analysis of Prosthetic Retaining Screws after Long‐term Use In Vivo. Part 3: Preload and Tensile Fracture Load Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the preload and tensile fracture load values of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo compared to unused screws (controls). Additionally, the investigation addressed whether the preload and fracture load values of prosthetic retaining screws reported by the manufacturer become altered after long-term use in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For preload testing, 10 new screws (controls) from Nobel Biocare (NB) and 73 used retaining screws [58 from NB and 15 from Sterngold (SG)] were subjected to preload testing. For tensile testing, eight controls from NB and 58 used retaining screws (46 from NB and 12 from SG) were subjected to tensile testing. Used screws for both tests were in service for 18-120 months. A custom load frame, load cell, and torque wrench setup were used for preload testing. All 83 prosthetic screws were torqued once to 10 Ncm, and the produced preload value was recorded (N) using an X-Y plotter. Tensile testing was performed on a universal testing machine and the resulting tensile fracture load value was recorded (N). Preload and tensile fracture load values were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between preload values for screws from NB and screws from SG (p < 0.001). The preload values for gold alloy screws from NB decreased as the number of years in service increased. There was a significant difference between tensile fracture values for the three groups (gold alloy screws from NB and SG and palladium alloy screws from NB) at p < 0.001. The tensile fracture values for gold alloy screws from NB and SG decreased as the number of years in service increased. CONCLUSIONS: In fixed detachable hybrid prostheses, perhaps as a result of galling, the intended preload values of prosthetic retaining screws may decrease with increased in-service time. The reduction of the fracture load value may be related to the increase of in-service time; however, the actual determination of this relationship is not possible from this study alone.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".