Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implant-supported crowns remain an ideal treatment option for the replacement of a missing tooth. The provisionalization phase remains a critical step between surgery and final crown placement, guiding soft tissue healing and providing esthetics and function. Although there are several possible pathways for provisionalization, the options are time-consuming, technically difficult and expensive, resulting in confusion and frustration for the dentist and cost and time for the patient. A novel dental implant abutment has been developed that aims to resolve the shortcomings of current abutments and the provisionalization process. 3D printing or additive manufacturing, with plastic and metal, were employed as an alternative approach for production of the prototype abutment. Scanning, computer-aided design and 3D plastic and metal printing were employed. Abutments were fabricated in MED690 VeroDentPlus and Duraform 316L stainless steel, respectively. Prototypes were printed with a claimed accuracy of 16 µm (plastic) and 8 µm (metal). The prototypes were qualitatively assessed for functionality by implant threading and simulated provisionalization process in a laboratory setting. The plastic prototypes were not suitable due to threading issues and material weakness. Metal prototypes tolerated artificial tooth fabrication successfully but concerns with thread pitch and accuracy remained. 3D metal printing appears to be a suitable alternative to traditionally machined implant components; however, post-production processing seems to be required. Further research is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".