ArticleBMC oral health2026
How does cement choice affect screw stability in implant-supported restorations with different abutment angulations? An in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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.
- Prosthetic Retention Mode and Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Level at a Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up After Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Retrospective Clustered Cohort Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo investigate the influence of cement type on the abutment-screw stability of single implant-supported restorations with different abutment angulations. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty CAD/CAM implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns simulating an upper premolar were divided into four groups (n = 10) according to the type of retention (SC: screwed, Cem: cemented), cement (TC: temporary, DC: definitve cement) and abutment angulation (SA: straight, AA: angulated abutment). Temp Bond NE and a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX) were used for temporary and definitive cementation, respectively. All samples were subjected to dynamic loading with thermocycling in a chewing simulator (6336 cycles, 5 -55 °C, 98 N, 1.2 million cycles). Pre- and post-loading reverse torque values (RTVs) were measured using an electronic screwdriver, and the reverse torque differences (RTD) were thereafter calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for the statistical analysis.
resultsAmong test groups, the lowest RTD was seen in group Cem_AA_DC (2.12 ± 2.06Ncm), whereas the highest was found in group Cem_SA_TC (3.16 ± 0.18 Ncm). Statistically significant differences were seen between the screwed (SC_SA) and all cemented groups except Cem_SA_TC (p = 0.089). Among the cemented groups, no significant difference was observed between straight and angulated abutments, nor between temporary and permanent cement types.
conclusionDefinitive cementation, particularly in angulated abutments, was associated with higher torque retention compared to screw-retained or temporary cemented restorations. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: Definitive cementation may contribute to improved screw stability of implant restorations, especially in angulated abutments, compared with temporary or screw-retained designs, highlighting the potential impact of retention method and cement choice on long-term mechanical 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.