## 4 Discussion
Among the lateral screw-retained group, SB686 T200 has the highest coping retention force, followed by SB686 T120, and SB686 T69.75 has the lowest. This demonstrates that tightening torque affects coping's retention capability (positive correlation), with higher tightening torque resulting in a higher coping retention force. Compared to cement-retained implants, the SB686 T69.75's retention is significantly lower (\(p<0.01\)). Compared to a study by [PERSON] et al., the average coping retention force of SB686 T69.75, which is 96.67 \(\pm\) 16.66 N, is higher compared to five of six commercially available temporary cements tested after 7 days of seating and higher than all of them when compared to 28-day-old specimens [43]. The coping retention force of cement-retained implants compared to SB686 T120 is insignificantly different, which shows that with the right tightening torque, the retention performance of friction-based lateral screw-retained implants is comparable to various cement-retained groups. Compared to SB686 T200, the coping retention force of cement-retained implants is significantly lower (\(p<0.01\)). There are no known standards regarding the retention force of dental implant coping. However, there are studies regarding the pull-out strength of dental implants. One of them is a study by [PERSON] et al. investigating the pull-out strength of a dental implant implanted in a rabbit tibia for 1 to 12 weeks of healing time. This study shows that healing time affects pull-out strength, which is similar to human bone [59]; it shows that after one week, the pull-out force is 187.9 \(\pm\) 69.2 N. After twelve weeks, the pull-out force is 351.8 \(\pm\) 69.2 N, and this value is also shown in a study by [PERSON] et al. for pull-out force on Synbone (Synbone AG, Malans, Switzerland), which simulates the artificial bone of the human femur [60]. The pull-out force shown in both studies shows a value close to SB686 T200, demonstrating that based on pull-out force setup conditions (sandblasting and tightening torque), SB686T200 groups show promising results since it is expected that the dental crown has a lower pull-out force compared to dental implants in a failure condition. The lateral screw-retained failure mode shows tracks from friction between the lateral screw and the abutment's surface, but the overall abutment did not show any damage. As shown in previous studies, the assembly and failure mode of cement-retained implants leave residue in the abutment and coping, which could result in peri-implantitis diseases [21; 22; 23]. The failure mode in lateral screw needs further investigations to understand whether its condition after failure affects the retention capability, as the surface roughness may decrease due to friction between the screw and the abutment's surface. If this type of failure affects retention performance, then the abutment needs to be replaced or re-sandblasted, and since there is no damage inflicted on the overall abutment, it can just be removed without any further disturbance to the implant and surrounding bones. This phenomenon also needs to be one of the considerations of using a one-piece implant for friction-based later screw-retained dental crowns, since any damage inflicted on the abutment area may need further invasive surgery. From this preliminary study, it is found that there needs to be further study into the preparation and assembly method for this novel friction-based lateral screw-retained method. As part of the preparation, sandblasting of the abutment as the primary surface treatment within this method will need to be performed in a laboratory environment with a proper cleaning method to remove debris and possible contamination from the sandblasting procedure. The lateral screw-retained coping also needed to be appropriately assembled using porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) for the crown but still provide enough access to the lateral screw access.