ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Pull-Off Forces on Implant-Supported Single Restorations by Sticky Food: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the pull-off forces on implant-supported restorations caused by sticky food, to understand how much retention force cemented restorations must have to withstand chewing forces without unintentional retention loss. The influence of food type, restoration design, and surface treatment were investigated. MATERIAL AND
methodsMonolithic implant-supported CAD/CAM zirconia crowns were fabricated and divided into groups according to their design: no (NC), flat (FC) and high cusps (HC) and subdivided according to surface roughness: rough (r) and smooth (s) (n = 10/group). NC represented the control group. The crowns were fixed in a universal testing machine opposite to each other. Four sticky foods (caramel, fruit jelly, candy strips and licorice) and a resin crown remover were tested. These were heated (36.4°C), placed between the crowns and compressed, then tensile strength tests were performed. The maximum pull-off force was recorded (Newton [N]). Statistical analysis was performed using 3-way ANOVA.
resultsThe highest mean pull-off force among food samples was with caramel_HC_r (12.09 ± 1.26 N), whereas the lowest was with licorice_FC_s (3.21 ± 0.15 N). For the resin crown remover, a mean pull-off force of 55.41 ± 3.87 N was measured in the HC_r group. Both food type and crown design showed a significant influence on pull-off force (p < 0.001), whereas no significant effect was reported with different surface roughnesses (p = 0.344).
conclusionThis study reported pull-off forces of up to 20 N between all-ceramic restorations caused by sticky food. The clinical implication of these findings is that a cemented implant-restoration must have a minimum retention force of 20 N to withstand unintentional displacement during function.
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.