A Biomechanical Comparative Analysis of Abutment Screw Head Designs on Preload Stability Under Oblique Compressive Forces: An In Vitro Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of abutment screw head sizes on preload stability when secured to a standard external hex implant under oblique compressive forces. Fifteen metal crowns were divided into 3 equal groups. The first group had 5 angulated cemented crowns connected to a 3-mm-tall straight hexagonal abutment with an external hex abutment screw. The second and third groups each had 5 straight cemented crowns attached to a tapered abutment with flat-slotted and internal hex abutment screws, respectively. Samples were subjected to a static cyclic load until failure. Kruskal-Wallis H, Dunn, and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey honestly significant difference tests were performed. Cemented straight crowns supported by an angled abutment connected to implants with flat-slotted and internal hex abutment screw heads failed at an average of 4.24 × 106 cycles ± 3.31 SD and 12.67 × 106 cycles ± 5.47 SD, respectively. Cemented angled crowns supported by a straight abutment connected to identical implants with an external hex abutment screw survived 18.02 × 106 cycles ± 4.49 SD. The periotest value rate of change increased at a higher rate in crowns supported by angled abutments compared with straight abutments (p < .05). No cement failure was observed. Under the experimental conditions, larger abutment screw head sizes demonstrated greater stability of the abutment-abutment screw joint interface. Based on the in vitro findings, no cement failure was observed between the cemented crown and abutment connection. Future research with standardized comparative setups and larger sample sizes is needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".