Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Titanium insert and zirconia abutment.

(A) Schematic diagram. (B) Specimen design. X, Axial height of the titanium insert. Y, Labial height of the zirconia abutment (Unit: ㎜).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Fracture load test using universal testing machine.

(A) Angle of force. (B) Clinical photograph of the fracture load test.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Load–deformation curve.

(A) Initial deformation load. (B) Fracture load. N: Newton.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Box plot of the initial deformation load.

(A) Comparison of five groups. (B) Comparison according to the axial height. X axis of the graph: group, Y axis of the graph: Newton.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Box plot of the initial deformation load by the labial height.

Comparison according to the labial height of the zirconia abutment. X axis of the graph: group, Y axis of the graph: Newton.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 1.

Initial deformation load in each group according to the axial height of the titanium insert.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Multiple pairwise comparisons of the initial deformation load by the axial height of the titanium insert.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

Box plot of the fracture load test.

(A) Comparison of five groups. (B) Comparison according to the axial height. X axis of the graph: group, Y axis of the graph: Newton.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Box plot of the fracture load test by the labial height.

Comparison according to the labial height of the zirconia abutment. X axis of the graph: group, Y axis of the graph: Newton.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 3.

Fracture load in each group according to the axial height of the titanium insert.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Multiple pairwise comparisons of the fracture load by the axial height of the titanium insert.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 8.

Fracture pattern of the zirconia abutment after the fracture load test.

(A) Partial fracture. (B) Exfoliation.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 5.

Fracture pattern distributions in each group.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 9.

SEM images of the implant surface after the fracture load test.

(A-D) Gr1. (E-H) Gr2. (I-L) Gr3. (M-P) Gr4. (Q-T) Gr5. Arrow, crack in the titanium insert. Asterisk, fractured surface of the zirconia abutment.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

SEM images of a cross-section of the implant after the fracture load test.

(A-C) Gr1. (D-F) Gr2. (G-I) Gr3. (J-L) Gr4. (M-O) Gr5. Arrow, crack in an abutment screw.

More »

Fig 10 Expand