ArticleCureus2025
Effect of the Diameter and Angulation Design of the Abutment Cementable Portion on Single Crown Retention: An In Vitro Experimental Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the influence of abutment geometry, specifically axial wall angulation and diameter, on the tensile strength of cemented prosthetic crowns using two types of abutments (Smart and Ideale) with identical heights but different diameters and angulation of the cementable abutment portion. Materials and methods Forty implant-abutment (IA) sets with a Morse taper connection were divided into four groups (n = 10): Sm1 (Smart, 3.5 mm), Id1 (Ideale, 3.3 mm), Sm2 (Smart, 4.5 mm), and Id2 (Ideale, 4.5 mm). Metal copings were cast using a nickel-chromium alloy and cemented with zinc phosphate cement under standardized conditions. Tensile testing was performed to determine the force required to remove each crown. Data were analyzed using parametric tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results All groups passed the Shapiro-Wilk normality test (p > 0.05). The Id2 group showed the highest mean tensile strength (235.1 ± 9.785 Ncm), followed by Sm2 (191.4 ± 8.870 Ncm), Id1 (150.8 ± 7.745 Ncm), and Sm1 (137.0 ± 7.666 Ncm). Statistically significant differences were observed between several group comparisons, indicating that both abutment angulation and diameter influence prosthesis retention. Conclusion Abutments with smaller axial angulation (Ideale model) and larger diameters demonstrated superior mechanical retention. These factors should be considered when selecting abutments for cemented implant-supported prostheses to ensure optimal retention and clinical performance.
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.