ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
In vitro fatigue and fracture testing of temporary materials from different manufacturing processes in implant-supported anterior crowns.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Load-To-Failure of Cantilevered Provisional Implant-Supported Prostheses: Conventional Versus 3D-Printed Resins.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Clinical Factors on Dental Implant Fractures: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the in vitro fatigue and fracture force of temporary implant-supported anterior crowns made of different materials with different abutment total occlusal convergence (TOC), with/without a screw channel, and with different types of fabrication. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred ninety-two implant-supported crowns were manufactured (4° or 8° TOC; with/without screw channel) form 6 materials (n = 8; 2 × additive, 3 × subtractive, 1 × automix; reference). Crowns were temporarily cemented, screw channels were closed (polytetrafluoroethylene, resin composite), and crowns were stored in water (37 °C; 10 days) before thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML). Fracture force was determined. STATISTICS: Kolmogorov-Smirnov, ANOVA; Bonferroni; Kaplan-Meier; log-rank; α = 0.05.
resultsFailure during TCML varied between 0 failures and total failure. Mean survival was between 1.8 × 10
conclusionAdditively and subtractively manufactured crowns provided similar or higher survival rates and fracture forces compared to automix crowns. The choice of material is decisive for the survival and fracture force. The fabrication is not crucial. A smaller TOC led to higher fracture force. Manually inserted screw channels had negative effects on fatigue testing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The highest stability has been shown for crowns with a low TOC, which are manufactured additively and subtractively. In automix-fabricated crowns, manually inserted screw channels have negative effects.
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.