Mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated versus customized dental implant abutments: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dental implant abutments play an important role in the health and aesthetics of soft and hard tissues around implants. PURPOSE: To compare mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated and customized dental implant abutments and provide references to evaluate the relationship between abutment choice and clinical indications. METHODS: Titanium abutments were randomly divided into prefabricated and customized abutments. Static and dynamic loads were applied according to ISO14801:2016. Mechanical properties, including fracture strength, fatigue strength, rotational torque value, and torque loss rate, were measured. The biological properties of the implant abutments were assessed using an internal marginal fit. The samples were sliced, and the internal marginal fit was examined using a scanning electron microscope before and after cyclic loading. The length of the tight contact was calculated at the level of the conical connection, lower internal connection, and screw threads. Microleakage was evaluated by immersing the samples in 1% methylene blue and measuring the absorbance. RESULTS: The fracture strengths of the prefabricated abutments were greater than those of the customized abutments before and after cyclic loading. The average fatigue strengths of the prefabricated and customized abutments were 350 and 300 N, respectively. The removal torque loss of the customized abutments was significantly greater than that of the prefabricated abutments. Significant differences were found in conical connection before loading, while the screw threads showed substantial differences between the two groups after loading. Microleakage in the customized abutments was significantly higher than that in the prefabricated abutments before and after loading. CONCLUSIONS: Prefabricated abutments showed superior mechanical and biological properties compared with customized abutments in vitro, suggesting a greater risk of mechanical and biological complications occurring with the use of customized abutments. This study provides a reference for the clinical selection of implant abutments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".