Mechanical Behavior and Failure Analysis of Prosthetic Retaining Screws after Long‐term Use in vivo. Part 4: Failure Analysis of 10 Fractured Retaining Screws Retrieved from Three Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to perform a failure analysis on fractured prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Additionally, the study addresses the commonly asked question regarding whether complex repeated functional occlusal forces initiate fatigue-type cracks in prosthetic retaining screws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten fractured prosthetic retaining screws retrieved from three patients treated with fixed detachable hybrid prostheses were subjected to a failure analysis. In patients 1 and 2, the middle three retaining screws of the prostheses were found fractured at retrieval time after they had been in service for 20 and 19 months, respectively. In patient 3, the middle three and one of the posterior retaining screws were found to be fractured at retrieval after they had been in service for 18 months. Low power stereomicroscopy and high-power scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were performed to analyze the fractured surfaces of the retaining screws examining fatigue cracks in greater detail. RESULTS: Typical fatigue failure characterized by ratchet mark formation was revealed by light microscopy and SEM for all examined screws. Using low magnification light microscopy, ratchet marks were visible on the fracture surfaces of only two screws. SEM examination revealed all three classical stages of fatigue failure, and it was possible to see the ratchet marks on the fracture surfaces of all specimens, indicating a fatigue zone. The final catastrophic overload fracture appeared fibrous, indicating ductile fracture. The final overload ductile fracture surfaces showed equiaxed dimples, suggesting tensile overload in all examined screws except in two specimens that showed an elongated dimple pattern indicating shear/tearing overload forces. CONCLUSIONS: Fracture of prosthetic retaining screws in hybrid prostheses occurs mainly through a typical fatigue mode involving mostly the middle anterior three screws. Fatigue cracks can grow in more than one prosthetic retaining screw, leading to fracture before the patient or clinician determines that any problem exists.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".