Implant‐Abutment Interface: Biomechanical Study of Flat Top versus Conical
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overloading has been identified as a primary factor behind dental implant failure. The peak bone stresses normally appear in the marginal bone. The anchorage strength is maximized if the implant is given a design that minimizes the peak bone stress caused by a standardized load. Clinical studies have shown that it is possible to obtain a marginal bone level close to the crest of the implant. Different implant systems make use of different designs of the implant-abutment interface. Different implant-abutment interfaces imply that the functional load is distributed in different ways upon the implant. According to Saint-Venant's principle, this will result in different stress patterns in the marginal bone when this reaches levels close to the implant crest. PURPOSE: One aim of the study was to theoretically investigate if a conical implant-abutment interface gives rise to a changed stress pattern in the marginal bone, as compared to a flat top interface, for an axially loaded mandibular titanium implant, the neck of which is provided with retention elements giving effective interlocking with the bone. Further aims were to investigate if the way in which the axial load is distributed on the flat top and on the inner conus respectively affects the stress pattern in the marginal bone. The pertinent stress was considered to be the bone-implant interfacial shear stress. It was assumed that the marginal bone reached the level of the implant-abutment interface. METHOD: The investigation was performed by means of axisymmetric finite element analysis. RESULTS: The conical implant-abutment interface of the type studied brought about a decrease in the peak bone-implant interfacial shear stress as compared to the flat top interface of the type studied. This peak interfacial shear stress was located at the top marginal bone for the flat top implant-abutment interface whereas it was located more apically in the bone for the conical implant-abutment interface. The way in which the axial load was distributed on the flat top and on the inner conus respectively affected the peak interfacial shear stress level. CONCLUSION: The design of the implant-abutment interface has a profound effect upon the stress state in the marginal bone when this reaches the level of this interface. The implant with the conical interface can theoretically resist a larger axial load than the implant with the flat top interface.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".