Fracture resistance of hybrid ceramic abutments with different restoration lengths: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In this pilot study, the fracture resistance of hybrid abutments with different restoration lengths was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen monolithic zirconia restorations of an upper right incisor were designed to fit a titanium base abutment. Eight central incisors had a crown length of 8 mm (T1) and the other half a length of 12 mm (T2). All crowns were cemented on the titanium base using a resin cement. After cementation, the samples were placed in a thermocycler for 5000 cycles. Fracture strength was measured using a universal test machine. Deformations and fractures of the samples were investigated. RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance of T1 was 515 N (SD 96 N, 339-650) and 305 N (SD 57 N, 234-408) for T2 (p < 0.001). Both groups showed deformation of the titanium base, with no significant difference between both groups (p = 0.200). A difference in fracture type (p = 0.013) was observed, with significantly more screw fractures occurring in group T1 (p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, hybrid restorations with standard titanium base abutments can withstand forces that have been associated with chewing, irrespective of the crown length. However, the shorter crowns demonstrated more fatal fractures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".