One‐piece internal zirconia abutments for single‐tooth restorations on narrow and regular diameter implants: A 5‐year prospective follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have reported an increased risk for fractures of zirconia abutments compared with titanium abutments. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate single-tooth implant restorations with one-piece yttria-stabilized internal zirconia abutments on narrow and regular diameter implants up to 6 years after insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study comprises 52 consecutively treated patients, with a median age of 19 years. In total, 59 narrow (3.3 mm) and 10 regular (4.1 mm) diameter implants were installed. Sixty-five all-ceramic crowns were cemented on implant-supported one-piece internal zirconia abutments and 4 restorations were screw-retained. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with 48 implant restorations participated in the final examination and another 14 patients with 16 implant restorations were possible to reach and could be interviewed. The implant survival was 100% but the survival rate for the implant-supported ceramic restorations was lower, 87.5%. Three crowns (4.7%) were remade for different reasons. Five restorations (7.8%) were remade due to fracture of the internal one-piece zirconia abutment. Four of these fractures occurred in 3.3 mm implant abutments. CONCLUSIONS: Narrow diameter implants offer an opportunity to restore small single-tooth edentulous gaps. For esthetical reasons the choice of an abutment in zirconia can be favorable, but at least with the used implant system, there seems to be an increased risk for fracture. Most patients were very satisfied with the esthetics and function of their implant restorations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".