Performance of zirconia abutments for implant‐supported single‐tooth crowns in esthetic areas: a retrospective study up to 12‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical study was to assess complications, success, and survival rates of zirconia abutments from different implant designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Anterior implant-supported single-tooth restorations, after 1-12 years of clinical function, were evaluated. One hundred and fifty-eight zirconia implant abutments placed in 141 patients were evaluated. Mechanical complications were observed, such as presence or absence of abutment fractures and loss of retention. In addition, the peri-implant parameters were observed. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact tests, and bone level was analyzed using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test for non-normally distributed data. RESULTS: Sixteen restorations exhibited different complications. However, no significant difference was observed between the standard and platform switching. The standard platforms exhibited higher marginal bone loss than platform switching design followed up to 5 years. Platform switching has a potentially higher risk of fracture in some designs. In our study, one standard platform as well as two-platform switch designs seem to withstand fracture in the anterior area, regardless of the implant width. Survival and success rates were 93.8% and 81.2% (up to >7 years ≤12), respectively, for standard platform; and 90 and 84% (up to >2 years ≤5), respectively, for platform switching. CONCLUSIONS: In general, standard platform implants restored with zirconia abutments were successful for the longest periods of observation and are a viable treatment alternative in anterior areas. Some of the studied designs of platform switching implants with zirconia abutments performed well for up to 5 years.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".