Clinical effect of Nobel Biocare angulated screw channel crown compared with cement crown in the aesthetic area: A retrospective cohort study with a mean 32 months follow‐up (range 12 to 70 months)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of angulated screw channel abutment applied in the anterior area with regular cemented crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients were included and divided into two groups: the angulated screw channel group (ASC) and regular cemented group (RC) in this retrospective cohort study. The evaluation criteria included implant/restoration survival rate, keratinized mucosa width (KMW), bleeding on probing rate (BOP%), probing depth (PD), pink aesthetic score (PES), mechanical/biological complications, emergence angle (EA), the site of implant axis penetrate (SA), marginal bone loss (MBL), and buccal bone thickness (BBT) at 0 mm, 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm below the implant shoulder were evaluated in immediate postoperative (T0) and follow-up period (T1). RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included a total of 48 patients, with a mean 32 months follow-up period range from 12 months to 70 months. The study did not find any cases of implant failure or restoration failure. EA was significantly wider in the RC group than ASC group (RC: 33.53° ± 8.36° vs ASC: 27.43° ± 8.08°, p = 0.016*). While the BOP% was statistically significant higher in the RC group than ASC group (RC: 28.35% ± 22.92% vs ASC: 13.18% ± 20.00%, p = 0.027*). No significant differences were observed in the other measurements of comparison. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, angulated screw channel (Nobel Biocare) crowns might allow the implant axis aim at incisal edge to reduce the emergence angle in the anterior area and benefit the soft-tissue during the 12-70 months follow-up period.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".