ArticlePloS one2025
Effect of screw access hole or vent hole opening strategies on the adhesive filling rate of oral implant cement-retained posterior crowns.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the adhesive filling rate (AFR) of implant prostheses on the abutment shoulder and axial surfaces under various hole opening strategies,and examined the correlation between hole openings and permanent adhesive retention strength.
methodsImplant crowns were divided into five groups: No hole (NH); Occlusal regular hole (ORH: 2.5 mm); Occlusal mini-hole (OMH: 1 mm); Lateral upper mini-hole (LUMH: 1 mm); and Lateral down mini-hole (LDMH: 1 mm). In the AFR experiment, abutments and prostheses were connected with two-color silicone rubber; the coverage of rubber at the inner surface of the prostheses was photographed. Images were analyzed by ImageJ software. In the adhesive retention strength experiment, prostheses and abutments were bonded using permanent resin cement; retention strength was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Welch's ANOVA, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference test.
resultsAbutment shoulder AFRs were OMH (98.70 ± 0.42%), LDMH (98.40 ± 1.30%), LUMH (97.92 ± 1.33%), NH (93.99 ± 5.45%), and ORH (86.11 ± 4.90%). One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference among groups (p < 0.001). Axial AFRs were LUMH (99.2 ± 0.47%), ORH (98.3 ± 0.8%), OMH (98.1 ± 0.5%), LDMH (97.9 ± 1.06%), and NH (96.4 ± 4.5%),Welch's ANOVA indicated no significant difference between groups (p = 0.054). In the retention strength experiment, OMH had the highest retention force (369.58 ± 27.27 N), whereas ORH had the lowest (272.81 ± 41.43 N), showing significant differences (p = 0.002).
conclusionsImplant screw access hole or vent hole opening strategies affected AFR of implant cement-retained posterior crowns. Larger holes or no openings decreased AFR at the abutment shoulder, whereas axial AFR was less affected. Hole openings variations on implant cement-retained posterior crowns might also influence their retention strength.
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.