Eleven‐Year Follow‐Up of a Prospective Study of Zirconia Implant Abutments Supporting Single All‐Ceramic Crowns in Anterior and Premolar Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical studies on zirconia abutments report very good survival rates and biological and technical results, but few have an observation period of more than 5 years. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term performance of customized zirconia implant abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients receiving 54 single implants were included (25 incisors, 14 canines, 15 premolars in both jaws). Yttria-stabilized zirconia abutments were screwed to the implants with a defined torque. All-ceramic crowns were adhesively cemented onto the abutments. The implants, abutments, and crowns were clinically and radiographically examined after 11 years of use. Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were used to assess technical outcomes: fracture of abutment/crown framework/veneering ceramic, loosening of abutment screw/crown, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, occlusal wear, and abutment fit. The biological parameters were pocket probing depth, plaque control record, bleeding on probing, papilla index, and gingival/mucosal recession at implants and neighboring natural teeth. The cumulative success rate of abutments and crowns was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The results of the USPHS criteria were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Sixteen patients with 31 zirconia abutments were examined at 11.3 (±0.9) years after implantation. No abutment or crown was lost. The cumulative success rate was 96.3% for abutments and 90.7% for crowns. Two abutment screws loosened, and three crowns exhibited minor chipping. There were no biological complications. CONCLUSIONS: Customized zirconia single implant abutments exhibited excellent long-term outcomes in anterior and premolar regions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".