ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Static and fatigue behavior of one- and two-piece zirconia implant abutment systems: an in vitro study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare static fracture behavior, fatigue survival, and fracture patterns of three one- and two-piece zirconia implant abutment systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree groups comprised 48 assemblies each: (1) Astra Tech ZirDesign, one-piece zirconia; (2) Biomet 3i CAP454, two-piece zirconia with a titanium base; and (3) Straumann RC Anatomic, one-piece zirconia. Within each group, 12 assemblies underwent initial static testing and 12 each underwent fatigue at 25%, 50%, or 75% of the system-specific reference load (10 Hz, approximately 30°, five million cycles). Static outcomes underwent one-way and Welch analyses of variance; pooled run-out proportions underwent exact tests (α = 0.05).
resultsMean static fracture loads were 1058 ± 225 N (Astra Tech), 866 ± 189 N (Biomet 3i), and 873 ± 402 N (Straumann), without a significant difference (p = .194). Calculated tensile-side stress differed (p = .016); compressive-side findings were method-dependent. Run-out was 88.9% at 25% (32/36; 95% confidence interval, 73.9%-96.9%) and 0% at higher levels (p < .001). Residual fracture outcomes described survivors only. Fractography indicated brittle cervical failure.
conclusionsStatic fracture-load superiority was not demonstrated. Fatigue run-out varied with relative loading; modeled stress differences do not establish intrinsic material-strength differences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These system-specific laboratory results cannot isolate an independent titanium-base effect or establish clinical service life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878899What 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.