Retentive Strength of Two‐Piece <scp>CAD</scp>/<scp>CAM</scp> Zirconia Implant Abutments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the retention of two-piece computer-aided design (CAD)/computer aided manufacturing (CAM) zirconia abutments after artificial aging under simulated oral conditions using three different types of resin-based luting agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one CAD/CAM-generated zirconia copings (CERCON Compartis, Degudent, Hanau, Germany) were bonded to a prefabricated secondary titanium implant insert (XiVE Ti-Base, Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), using three different types of resin-based luting agents: group A: Panavia 21 (Kuraray Co, Kurashiki, Japan); group B: Multilink Implant (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); and group C: SmartCem2 (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany). The bonding surfaces of the titanium inserts and the zirconia ceramic copings were air-abraded and cleaned in alcohol. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 60 days and subsequently thermal-cycled 15,000 times (5-55 °C). The dislodging force of the copings along the long axis of the implant/abutment complex was recorded using a universal testing machine with 2 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were analyzed descriptively and by performing the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: The mean retention values were 924.93 ± 363.31 N for Panavia 21, 878.05 ± 208.33 N for Multilink Implant, and 650.77 ± 174.92 N for SmartCem2. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated no significant difference between the retention values of the tested luting agents (p = 0.1314). The failure modes of all tested two-piece abutments were completely adhesive, leaving the detached zirconia coping and titanium insert undamaged. CONCLUSION: The use of resin-based luting agents in combination with air abrasion of titanium inserts and zirconia copings led to a stable retention of two-piece CAD/CAM abutments. The bonding stability of the investigated luting agents exceeded the general limits of fracture resistance of two-piece zirconia abutments. A notable difference between the mean retention values of the tested bond materials was shown. However, the statistical analysis revealed that this difference was not significant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".