ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Biomechanical behavior of implants with different diameters in relation to simulated bone loss- an in vitro study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct Structural Determinants of Failure in Morse Taper and Internal Hex Implant Systems.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Influence of Different Implantoplasty Designs on the Fatigue Resistance of Dental Implants: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Dental Implant Prosthesis and Surrounding Bone Using PEEK Abutments.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The effect of different implant-abutment types and heights on screw loosening in cases with increased crown height space.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBone resorption around implants could influence the resistance of the implant abutment complex (IAC). The present in vitro study aimed to assess the stability to static fatigue of implants presenting different levels of bone losses and diameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety implants with an internal conical connection with 3 different implant diameters (3.3 mm (I33), 3.8 mm (I38), and 4.3 mm (I43)) and 3 simulated bone loss settings (1.5 mm (I_15), 3.0 mm (I_30), and 4.5 mm (I_45) (n = 10)) were embedded and standard abutments were mounted. All specimens were artificially aged (1,200,000 cycles, 50 N, simultaneous thermocycling) and underwent subsequently load-to-fracture test. For statistical analysis, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05) were applied.
resultsAll test specimens withstood the artificial aging without damage. The mean failure values were 382.1 (± 59.2) N (I3315), 347.0 (± 35.7) N (I3330), 315.9 N (± 30.9) (I3345), 531.4 (± 36.2) N (I3815), 514.5 (± 40.8) N (I3830), 477.9 (± 26.3) N (I3845), 710.1 (± 38.2) N (I4315), 697.9 (± 65.2) N (I4330), and 662.2 N (± 45.9) (I4345). The stability of the IACs decreased in all groups when bone loss inclined. Merely, the failure load values did not significantly differ among subgroups of I43.
conclusionsLarger implant diameters and minor circular bone loss around the implant lead to a higher stability of the IAC. The smaller the implant diameter was, the more the stability was affected by the circumferential bone level. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Preserving crestal bone level is important to ensure biomechanical sustainability at implant systems with a conical interface. It seems sensible to take the effect of eventual bone loss around implants into account during implant planning processes and restorative considerations.
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.