Influence of Implant Connection Type on the Biomechanical Environment of Immediately Placed Implants – CT‐Based Nonlinear, Three‐Dimensional Finite Element Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants, before and after osseointegration, by comparing three different implant-abutment connection types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A computer tomography-based finite element model of an upper central incisor extraction socket was constructed containing implants with either external hex, internal hex, or Morse-taper connection. Frictional contact elements were used in the bone, implant, abutment, and abutment screw interfaces in the immediately placed simulations. In osseointegrated simulations, the repair of bone alveolar defect and a glued bone-to-implant interface were assumed. By analysis of variance, the influence was assessed of connection type, clinical situation, and loading magnitude on the peak equivalent strain in the bone, peak von Mises stress in the abutment screw, bone-to-implant relative displacement, and abutment gap. RESULTS: The loading magnitudes had a significant contribution, regardless of the assessed variable. However, the critical clinical situation of an immediately placed implant itself was the main factor affecting the peak equivalent strain in the bone and bone-to-implant displacement. The largest influence of the connection type in this protocol was seen on the peak equivalent stress in the abutment screw. On the other hand, a higher influence of the various connection types on bone stress/strain could be noted in osseointegrated simulations. CONCLUSIONS: The implant-abutment connection design did not significantly influence the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants. Avoiding implant overloading and ensuring a sufficient initial intraosseous stability are the most relevant parameters for the promotion of a safe biomechanical environment in this protocol.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".