MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Stability of Implant-Abutment Interface with a Hexagon-Mediated Butt Joint: Failure Mode and Bending Resistance

2005· article· en· W2091461819 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ameen Khraisat

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceImplantBendingUniversal testing machineAbutmentCyclic stressComposite materialStructural engineeringOrthodonticsMedicineEngineeringUltimate tensile strengthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical data showed that the external hexagon implant system with a gold abutment screw has reduced the problem of screw loosening or fracture. However, the behavior of the implant-abutment joint components with respect to unfavorable bending force is still unclear. PURPOSE: This study investigated the joint instability and bending resistance of a single-tooth external hexagon implant system after lateral cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen implant assemblies (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) were divided equally into three groups: A, B, and C. Each assembly consisted of a Brånemark System Mk IV implant (4 x 10 mm) mounted in a brass block, a CeraOne abutment (3 mm), and an experimental cement-retained superstructure. For group A, a centric lateral cyclic load of 50 N was applied for 1.0 x 10(6), whereas for group B, the same load was eccentrically applied for 1.0 x 10(6) cycles. Group C, the control, was not loaded. After cyclic loading, specimens were mounted in a universal testing machine, and the yield and bending strengths were measured (kg). The external hexagon surface texture was examined using a secondary electron microscope. The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and compared by the Tukey test (alpha = .05). RESULTS: For all test specimens, the abutment screw was plastically bent in the unthreaded portion. Group B had a significantly lower mean yield and bending strengths than group C (p = .005 and .010, respectively). Post-cyclic loading photographs showed that group B implants had marked burnishing around the hexagon corners. The bending force abraded both corner areas of the hexagon surface but left the middle area nearly intact for all tested groups. However, group B had the significantly lowest mean abraded area. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, eccentric rather than centric lateral cyclic loading negatively affected the resistance of the implant-abutment joint to static bending.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→