Narrow implants with external or internal hexagon connections presented the lowest reliability at high loads compared to internal conical connections. Failure modes differed among connections.

No abstract

This study evaluated the influence of polishing protocols on the surface roughness of flowable and regular bulk fill composites. Five bulk fill composites were tested: SureFil SDR Flow (SDR), Tetric EvoFlow Bulk fill (TEF), Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable (FIF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEC), and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (FIP). Two polishing protocols were tested: Sof-Lex and Astropol. Astropol created a smoother surface for FIP (P < .05); however, the polishing protocol did not influence surface roughness on TEC (P > .05). SDR, TEF, and FIF exhibited rougher surfaces when polished. Sof-Lex created rougher surfaces for bulk fill composites. It was concluded that surface roughness was related to material composition rather than the polishing system. Int J

The investigated narrow implants presented mechanical performance under fatigue that suggests their safe use as single crowns in the anterior region.