ArticleDental research journal
Effect of tightening torque on the marginal adaptation of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
Article in Dental research journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abutment misfit in implant-supported prostheses manufactured by casting technique: An integrative review.European journal of dentistryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe final position of the abutment changes with the amount of tightening torque. This could eventually lead to loss of passivity and marginal misfit of prostheses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of three different tightening torques on the marginal adaptation of 3-unit cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo implants (Straumann) were inserted in an acrylic block so that one of the implants was placed vertically and the other at a 15° vertical angle. A straight abutment and a 15° angulated abutment were connected to the vertically and obliquely installed implants, respectively, so that the two abutments were parallel. Then, 10 cement-retained FDPs were waxed and cast. Abutments were tightened with 10, 20, and 35 Ncm torques, respectively. Following each tightening torque, FDPs were luted on respective abutments with temporary cement. The marginal adaptation of the retainers was evaluated using stereomicroscope. FDPs were then removed from the abutments and were sectioned at the connector sites. The retainers were luted again on their respective abutments. Luting procedures and marginal adaptation measurement were repeated. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and least significant difference tests (α = 0.05). After cutting the FDP connectors, the independent samples t-test was used to compare misfit values (α = 0.05).
resultsFollowing 10, 20, and 35 Ncm tightening torques, the marginal discrepancy of the retainers of FDPs significantly increased (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the marginal discrepancies of these two retainers (P > 0.05). The marginal gap values of angulated abutment retainers (ANRs) were significantly higher than those of the straight abutment after cutting the connectors (P = 0.026).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, the marginal misfit of cement-retained FDPs increased continuously when the tightening torque increased. After cutting the connectors, the marginal misfit of the ANRs was higher than those of the straight abutment retainers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.