MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2883610406 · doi:10.1111/cid.12644

Evaluation of volumetric wear of abutments on the retention loss of ball attachment systems in implant‐retained overdentures: An in vitro study

2018· article· en· W2883610406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Yabul, Süleyman Çağatay Dayan, Onur Geçkili, Hakan Bilhan, Necat Tuncer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplantAcrylic resinDentistryMaterials sciencePolyethyleneTitaniumOrthodonticsMedicineComposite materialSurgeryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of studies evaluating the wear of the male components of the ball attachment systems of implant-retained overdentures. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the volumetric wear patterns four commercially used ball abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight identical polyethylene and acrylic blocks were fabricated and four groups consisting of 12 polyethylene blocks with two implants and 12 acrylic blocks, which were used as overdentures, were generated (two groups with plastic females, one group with gold and one group with titanium females). Every specimen underwent 5000 insertion and removal cycles (~4.5 years) and retention forces were measured. For the evaluation of volumetric wear, all the ball abutments were scanned before and after the 5000 cycles using a three-dimensional scanner and the data were analyzed using the software supplied by the manufacturer. RESULTS: Statistically significant retention force differences were observed between the groups at each cycle (P < .05). Among the four groups, retention force was lowest in the group with titanium females (5.59 ± 2.27) and highest in the group with gold females (43.0 ± 6.3) at the end of 5000 cycles. Statistically significant dimensional changes in the male components were observed between the groups (P < .05). Volumetric losses were 11%-13% in Group I and II, 1% in Group III, and 25% in Group IV. Group III showed significantly lower volumetric wear whereas Group IV showed significantly higher volumetric wear than all the other groups (P < .001). No significance was detected between Group I and II (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations, it can be concluded that although clinical studies are needed to ensure the findings of the present study, due to severe retention loss and volumetric abutment wear, ball attachments with titanium female components should be used with caution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→