ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Passivity, torque stability, and fracture resistance in screw-retained and dual-retained metal-ceramic implant-supported restorations: an in vitro study, part II.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the passivity, screw torque stability, and fracture resistance between dual- and screw-retained implant restorations, before and after thermomechanical loading.
methodsTwenty metal-ceramic restorations were divided into two groups (n = 10 each). Group 1 (G1) featured dual-retained restorations on prefabricated titanium abutments, while Group 2 (G2) had screw-retained restorations on UCLA chromium-cobalt cast-to abutments. Passivity, adjustment ease, and torque loss were compared, along with fracture resistance and mode, post-fabrication and after thermomechanical loading (500 thermal and 500,000 mechanical loading cycles). Independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare passivity characteristics and fracture resistance, while torque losses were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with LSD post-hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsG1 required significantly less adjustment time and frequency (P < .001) and exhibited a lower torque angle (higher passivity) (P = .001) compared to G2. In G1, the screw torque loss (%) measured 24.02 ± 3.01 before and 36.51 ± 4.28 after loading compared to the initial torque and 16.17 ± 3.67 after loading compared to the detorque value. In G2, these values were 24.76 ± 3.45, 39.9 ± 2.55, and 20.1 ± 3.96, respectively. While the rate of torque loss did not differ significantly before loading, it was significantly higher in G2 after loading (P < .05). Fracture resistance was significantly higher in G1 (P < .05). Both groups exhibited a mixed type of failure mode.
conclusionsDual-retained metal-ceramic restorations outperformed screw-retained counterparts, demonstrating improved passivity, lower screw torque loss percentages, and higher fracture resistance. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.