MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273744447 · doi:10.1111/jopr.12461

Reliability and Failure Modes of a Hybrid Ceramic Abutment Prototype

2016· article· en· W2273744447 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsAbutmentMaterials scienceFixtureStereo microscopeCeramicCrown (dentistry)Composite materialFracture (geology)Dental prosthesisUniversal testing machineReliability (semiconductor)Structural engineeringImplantUltimate tensile strengthMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A ceramic and metal abutment prototype was fatigue tested to determine the probability of survival at various loads. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lithium disilicate CAD-milled abutments (n = 24) were cemented to titanium sleeve inserts and then screw attached to titanium fixtures. The assembly was then embedded at a 30° angle in polymethylmethacrylate. Each (n = 24) was restored with a resin-cemented machined lithium disilicate all-ceramic central incisor crown. Single load (lingual-incisal contact) to failure was determined for three specimens. Fatigue testing (n = 21) was conducted employing the step-stress method with lingual mouth motion loading. Failures were recorded, and reliability calculations were performed using proprietary software. Probability Weibull curves were calculated with 90% confidence bounds. Fracture modes were classified with a stereomicroscope, and representative samples imaged with scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Fatigue results indicated that the limiting factor in the current design is the fatigue strength of the abutment screw, where screw fracture often leads to failure of the abutment metal sleeve and/or cracking in the implant fixture. Reliability for completion of a mission at 200 N load for 50K cycles was 0.38 (0.52% to 0.25 90% CI) and for 100K cycles was only 0.12 (0.26 to 0.05)-only 12% predicted to survive. These results are similar to those from previous studies on metal to metal abutment/fixture systems where screw failure is a limitation. No ceramic crown or ceramic abutment initiated fractures occurred, supporting the research hypothesis. The limiting factor in performance was the screw failure in the metal-to-metal connection between the prototyped abutment and the fixture, indicating that this configuration should function clinically with no abutment ceramic complications. CONCLUSION: The combined ceramic with titanium sleeve abutment prototype performance was limited by the fatigue degradation of the abutment screw. In fatigue, no ceramic crown or ceramic abutment components failed, supporting the research hypothesis with a reliability similar to that of all-metal abutment fixture systems. A lithium disilcate abutment with a Ti alloy sleeve in combination with an all-ceramic crown should be expected to function clinically in a satisfactory manner.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it