MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414153037 · doi:10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_25_00065

Influence of titanium-base and universal abutment heights on the adaptation and fracture of screw-and-cemented-retained lithium disilicate crowns

2025· article· en· W4414153037 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontic Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsFracture (geology)Lithium disilicateAbutmentAdaptation (eye)Deformation (meteorology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated the adaptation and fracture resistance of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported restorations using lithium disilicate crowns cemented onto titanium bases and universal abutments of different heights. METHODS: Thirty crowns were designed, milled, and divided into three groups: TBA (titanium base abutment - 4.7-mm-height and 4.65-mm-diameter), UA-4 (universal abutment - 4.0-mm-height and 4.5-mm-diameter), and UA-6 (universal abutment - 6.0-mm-height and 4.5-mm-diameter) (n=10). The abutments were placed in a mandibular first premolar model, torqued to 20 Ncm, and scanned using a digital intraoral scanner. The crowns were designed and fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology. Adaptation was assessed using a stereomicroscope before and after ceramic sintering and after cementation with RelyX Ultimate resin cement. Fracture resistance was evaluated using a universal testing machine, and the failure modes were analyzed. The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey least significant difference test (α=0.05). RESULTS: The abutment type influenced restoration adaptation and fracture resistance. No differences in adaptation were found before or after luting (P > 0.05). However, after sintering, the TBA group exhibited smaller marginal gaps than the UA-4 (P = 0.0339) and UA-6 (P = 0.0006) groups. TBA showed a higher fracture resistance than UA-4 (P = 0.0093); no differences were observed between TBA and UA-6 or between UA-4 and UA-6 (P > 0.05). The UA-4 and UA-6 groups showed higher ceramic fracture rates, whereas the TBA group showed increased abutment deformation and ceramic fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The type and height of abutments influenced the fracture of screw-and-cement-retained implant-supported restorations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it