ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2023
Fatigue Resistance of Cast-on Implant Abutment Fabricated with Three Different Alloys.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate fatigue resistance of cast-on implant abutment using three alloys. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty specimens of implant-supported crowns were prepared; Group 1 (TA) stock titanium abutments, Group 2 (GS) abutment cast with 40% gold alloy, Group 3 (GP) abutment cast with palladium alloy, and Group 4 (CN) abutment cast with nickel-chromium alloy. Specimens were cyclic loaded at 20 Hz, starting from 200 N (5,000 cycles), followed by stepwise loading of 400, 600, 800, 1,000, 1,200, 1,400, 1,600, and 1,800 N (30,000 cycles/step). Specimens were loaded until failure or reached 245,000 cycles. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The withstand cycles were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Weibull survival analysis. Fracture surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy.
resultsThe results of withstand cycles were TA (189,883 ± 22,734), GS (195,028 ± 22,371), GP (187,662 ± 22,555), and CN (200,350 ± 30,851). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the groups (
conclusionAlthough CN has higher Weibull characteristic strength which means greater durability, its lower Weibull modulus demonstrated less structural reliability. Consistent failures at implant fixture level were also found in CN group.
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.