Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Ceramic versus Titanium Implant Abutments and Single Implant‐Supported Restorations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The material of choice for implant-supported restorations is affected by esthetic requirements and type of abutment. PURPOSE: This study compares the fracture resistance of different types of implant abutments and implant-supported restorations and their mode of failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five Oraltronics Pitt-Easy implants (Oraltronics Dental Implant Technology GmbH, Bremen, Germany) (4 mm diameter, 10 mm length) were embedded in clear autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The implants were randomly divided into three groups, A, B and C, of 15 implants each. In group A, titanium abutments and metal-ceramic crowns were used. In group B, zirconia ceramic abutments and In-Ceram Alumina crowns were used. In group C, zirconia ceramic abutments and IPS Empress Esthetic crowns were used. Specimens were tested to failure by applying load at 130° from horizontal plane using an Instron Universal Testing Machine. Subsequently, the mode of failure of each specimen was identified. RESULTS: Fracture resistance was significantly different between groups (p < .05). The highest fracture loads were associated with metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments (p = .000). IPS Empress crowns supported by zirconia abutments had the lowest fracture loads (p = .000). Fracture modes of metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments included screw fracture and screw bending. Fracture of both crown and abutment was the dominant mode of failure of In-Ceram/IPS Empress crowns supported by zirconia abutments. CONCLUSIONS: Metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments were more resistant to fracture than In-Ceram crowns supported by zirconia abutments, which in turn were more resistant to fracture than IPS Empress crowns supported by zirconia abutments. In addition, failure modes of restorations supported by zirconia abutments were more catastrophic than those for restorations supported by titanium abutments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".