Influence of Implant-Abutment Contact Surfaces and Prosthetic Screw Tightening on the Stress Concentration, Fatigue Life and Microgap Formation: A Finite Element Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this in silico study was to investigate the effect of abutment screw torque and implant-abutment contact surfaces on the stress generation, microgap formation and simulated fatigue life of an external hexagon connection under oblique loading. Three-dimensional numerical models of the external hexagon implant were modeled containing two different implant-abutment contact surfaces (with and without contacting the hexagon axial walls) as well as using screw torques of 20 Ncm or 30 Ncm. Following the ISO 14801, an oblique load of 100 N was applied to the prosthesis. The von Mises stress, microgap formation, safety factor and fatigue life were obtained. The stresses in the abutment screw and implant were minimally influenced by the screw torque. However, this minimal stress in the screw with a 30 Ncm torque reduced the calculated fatigue life in comparison with 20 Ncm when the external hexagon axial walls were not in contact at the implant-abutment interface. The safety factor for the implant was higher when using minimal surfaces at the abutment-interfaces; however, it compromised the screw safety factor increasing its failure probability. The higher the screw torque, the lower was the microgap formation at the implant-abutment interface. However, the calculated residual stress is proportional to the applied torque, reducing the fatigue life in the screw. This effect can be attenuated using an implant-abutment system with more contacting surfaces.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".