Abutment Rotational Displacement of External Hexagon Implant System Under Lateral Cyclic Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This in vitro study investigated the effect of lateral cyclic loading with different load positions and periods on abutment rotational displacement (RD) of external hexagon implant system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups of five implant assemblies each were used. Each assembly consisted of Brånemark System Mk IV implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), CeraOne abutment (Nobel Biocare AB), and a cement-retained casting. A cyclic load of 50 N was applied centrally and perpendicular to the long axis of the implant for groups A and B for 0.25 and 0.50 x 10(6) cycles, respectively, while for groups C and D, the same load was applied at 4-mm distance eccentrically for 0.25 and 0.50 x 10(6) cycles, respectively. The displacement was evaluated by hand drawing a longitudinal line across the implant-abutment interface. Before and after loading, the lateral distance between two reference points on the abutment and implant was measured under high resolution (x200) and the difference formed the RD value. The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and compared with Tukey test (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: Group D had the highest mean of RD value (55.00 +/- 1.871 microm), while group A had the lowest (2.800 +/- 0.837 microm). Groups A and B had a high statistically significant difference in RD values, as compared to groups C or D (p < .001). Moreover, group C had statistically significant difference from group D (p=.011). Conversely, no statistical significance was obtained when group A was compared with group B. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this in vitro study, the RD of the external hexagon joint components occurred significantly under eccentric lateral loading when compared to centric loading. The displacement increased significantly with longer period of eccentric lateral loading.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".