Abutment mechanical complications of a Morse taper connection implant system: A 1‐ to 9‐year retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fracture of a Morse tapered abutment connection in an osseointegrated implant is one of the most serious mechanical complications, and it is extremely hard to deal with this complication in clinical practice. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the cumulative mechanical complications focus on abutment of a platform switching Morse taper connection implant system after loading, and to perform a retrospective, approximately 1- to 9-year follow-up study to identify the predisposing factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 495 patients with 945 fitted implants were enrolled in this study with a follow-up from January 2012 to January 2020. The data of mechanical complications of the abutment, including abutment fracture (AF) and abutment screw loosening (ASL), and possible causative factors were extracted and evaluated statistically. RESULTS: A total of 25 out of 945 (2.65%) cumulative abutment mechanical complications occurred. AF was the most common complication (n = 13, 1.38%), followed by ASL (n = 12, 1.27%). For AF, gender, type of prosthesis, abutment design, and implant diameter were identified as the causative factors. AF was mostly observed in the single crown of males in molar areas, while ASL was more likely to occur on an angled abutment than on a non-angled abutment. Moreover, the abutment with the positioning index (/X) had a higher incidence of fracture than the abutment without the positioning index (C/). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the Morse taper connection is a safe abutment connection. AF occurs more frequently within single crowns in molar area of males, especially with the positioning index (/X), while ASL is more likely to occur in an angled abutment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".