Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37241340›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Static and Fatigue Mechanical Performance of Abutments Materials for Dental Restorations.

Luigi Bruno, Luigi Canullo, Yaniv Mayer, Todd Schoenbaum, Francesco Giuzio, Carmine Maletta

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Luigi BrunoDepartment of Mechanical Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6745-0466
Luigi CanulloDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9875-2929
Yaniv MayerDepartment of Periodontology, School of Post Graduate Dentistry, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa P.O. Box 9602, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-5500-7961
Todd SchoenbaumSchool of Dentistry, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Francesco GiuzioDental Medicine and Oral Surgery, 87100 Cosenza, Italy.
Carmine MalettaDepartment of Mechanical Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9204-5358

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The choice of the proper restorative material is essential for the long-term success of implant-supported rehabilitations. This study aimed to analyze and compare the mechanical properties of four different types of commercial abutment materials for implant-supported restorations. These materials included: lithium disilicate (A), translucent zirconia (B), fiber-reinforced polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (C), and ceramic-reinforced polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (D). Tests were carried out under combined bending-compression conditions, which involved applying a compressive force tilted with respect to the abutment axis. Static and fatigue tests were performed on two different geometries for each material, and the results were analyzed according to ISO standard 14801:2016. Monotonic loads were applied to measure static strength, whereas alternating loads with a frequency of 10 Hz and a runout of 5 × 10

Indexed as

abutmentdental implantfatigue strengthmechanical characterizationstatic strength

Identifiers

PMID37241340
PMCPMC10222475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.