ArticleBMC oral health2025
Impact of implant abutment materials on force damping response and marginal fit of implant supported restoration.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe marginal fit and force-damping response of implant-supported restorations play critical roles in the long-term success of dental implants. This study evaluates the effect of implant abutment materials- resin-ceramic material, lithium disilicate, PEEK, and Titanium- on implant-supported restorations' marginal fit and force-damping response. The study offers novel insights into stress distribution and marginal gaps, aiming to optimize implant-supported restoration outcomes.
methodsForty implant abutments were divided into four equal groups: Shofu HC, Tessera, BioHPP, and Titanium. Vertical marginal gap measurements were taken using a digital microscope before and after Cementation, and force damping was assessed using a custom impact test machine. Non-metal abutments were custom-fabricated using STL files and a CAD/CAM machine (CEREC MC X5, Dentsply Sirona) for Tessera (MT/LT-BL2), Shofu HC Block (A3-LT/M), a resin hybrid ceramic (61% zirconium silicate, 39% nano-filler composite), and BioHPP (bredent GmbH & Co KG). Quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD and analyzed using ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test. Normality was confirmed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and differences between groups were assessed with an unpaired Student's t-test.
resultsBefore Cementation, the Biohpp group demonstrated the highest marginal gap (35.49 ± 2.31 µm), followed by Titanium (31.05 ± 1.87 µm) and Shofu HC Block (29.35 ± 1.72 µm). Tessera exhibited the lowest marginal gap (23.70 ± 2.99 µm) (P < 0.001). After Cementation, marginal gaps increased across all groups, with Biohpp (46.47 ± 3.10 µm) and Titanium (38.43 ± 2.25 µm) showing the most significant gaps, while Tessera continued to demonstrate the lowest (30.80 ± 1.64 µm) (P < 0.001). In force damping tests, Shofu HC Block recorded the lowest impact force (0.804 ± 0.034 N), followed by Biohpp (0.866 ± 0.027 N) and Tessera (0.920 ± 0.029 N). Titanium exhibited the highest force (0.970 ± 0.033 N), with all results showing statistical significance (P < 0.001).
conclusionsLithium disilicate exhibited the smallest marginal gap before and after Cementation, while PEEK showed the largest, followed by Titanium and resin-ceramic material. Resin-ceramic material had the highest shock absorption for force damping, followed by PEEK and Lithium disilicate, while Titanium recorded the highest impact force, indicating the least damping ability.
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.