ArticleBMC oral health2023
Retention of zirconia crowns to titanium bases with straight versus angled screw access channels: an invitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Er: YAG laser debonding performance for cement-retained zirconia implant crowns.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Two-Phase Material Shape Optimization of an Additively Manufactured Integrated Metal and Ceramic Resin Implant-Supported Dental Crown.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Retention of CAD-CAM Implant-Supported Ceramic Restorations Luted to Titanium Bases: A Systematic Review of in-vitro Studies.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2025Review
- Internal fit and marginal adaptation of all-ceramic implant-supported hybrid abutment crowns with custom-milled screw-channels on Titanium-base: in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns.BMC oral health · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of abutments with angled screw access channel on the retention of zirconia crowns.
methodsSeven implant replicas were inserted in epoxy resin blocks. Fourteen zirconia crowns for central incisor tooth were digitally fabricated and cemented to titanium bases (Ti-bases) with resin cement. Titanium bases were categorized into 2 groups (n = 7). Control group (Group STA) included straight screw access channel abutments. Study group (Group ASC) included angled screw access channel abutments. Following aging (5 °C-55 °C, 60 s; 250,000 cycles, 100 N, 1.67 Hz), the pull-off forces (N) were recorded by using retention test (1 mm/min). Types of failure were defined as (Type 1; Adhesive failure when luting agent predominantly remained on the Ti-base surface (> 90%); Type 2; Cohesive failure when luting agent remained on both Ti-base and crown surfaces; and Type 3; Adhesive failure when luting agent predominantly remained on the crown (> 90%). Statistical analysis was conducted by using (IBM SPSS version 28). Normality was checked by using Shapiro Wilk test and Q-Q plots. Independent t-test was then used to analogize the groups.
resultsMean ± standard deviation of retention force records ranged from 1731.57 (63.68) N (group STA) to 1032.29 (89.82) N (group ASC), and there was a statistically significant variation between the 2 groups (P < .05). Failure modes were Type 2 for group STA and Type 3 for group ASC.
conclusionsThe retention of zirconia crowns to abutments with a straight screw access channel is significantly higher than abutments with angled screw access channel.
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.