ArticleDentistry journal2024
Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. 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.
- Evaluation of micro-gap at implant abutment interface using different connection design.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of Non-Engaging Abutments Used for Multi-Unit Screw-Retained Fixed Prosthesis.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the microgap size between engaging (E) and non-engaging (NE) abutments and screw morphology changes between E and NE abutments using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after cyclic loading (CL).
methodsThirty-six implants were arranged into four groups as follows: Group 1, single units with E abutments; Group 2, single units with NE abutments; Group 3, three-unit fixed partial dentures with a hemi-engaging design; and Group 4, three-unit FPDs with two NE abutments. The microgap was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. SEM was used to qualitatively evaluate screw morphology. The specimens were subjected to axial loading first and then lateral loading (30°) using the settings; one million cycles (1.0 × 10
resultsThere were no significant differences detected in the microgap sizes between the E and NE abutment groups. In addition, there were no significant changes in the microgap sizes after CL in the E or NE abutment specimens. More damage to the screws was noticed after CL compared to before, with no difference in the patterns of damage detected between the E and NE abutments.
conclusionsNo significant difference in microgap size was detected between the E and NE abutments. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in microgap size between the different prosthetic designs. From the SEM qualitative evaluation, there were similar screw morphology changes after CL between the E and NE abutments.
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.