Clinical Performance of Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic CAD/CAM Crowns Provided by Predoctoral Students at the University of Toronto
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The clinical success of monolithic lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns manufactured with computer-aided design (CAD) / computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology provided by predoctoral students has not yet been investigated. The aims of this retrospective clinical study were to evaluate the clinical performance of monolithic posterior LDGC CAD/CAM (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) crowns fabricated with conventional and digital workflows provided by predoctoral students at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. In addition, it assessed the effect of different patient and operator-related factors on their longevity. Furthermore, their clinical performance was compared to the metal-ceramic (MC) posterior crowns. Clinical assessment of the crowns and supporting periodontal structures was performed following the modified California Dental Association criteria. Intra-oral photographs, periapical and bitewing radiographs were taken for further assessment by two evaluators. In part 1 of this study, the clinical performance of 210 LDGC-CAD/CAM crowns fabricated with polyvinyl siloxane impressions for 6 years was evaluated. Crowns were milled in-house with CEREC Bluecam system using IPS e.max CAD blocks. Twenty-eight complications were observed (12-technical, 11-biological, and 5-esthetic). The 6-year survival and success rates were 93% and 86.4%, respectively. In part 2, the clinical performance of 40 chairside LDGC-CAD/CAM posterior crowns fabricated with digital impressions was evaluated. Impressions were taken with the Omnicam system and crowns were milled using a CEREC MC-XL machine. Three complications were observed (1-biological and 2-technical). The 4-year survival and success rates were 92.6% and 89.7%, respectively. In part 3, the clinical performance of 112 MC crowns for up to 10 years was evaluated. The 10-year survival and success rates were 87.1% and 81.0%%, respectively. Esthetic problems accounted for the majority of complications. In part 4, the clinical performance of LDGC-CAD/CAM was compared to MC crowns using split-mouth design for 6 years. Twelve complications were observed in the MC crown group (9-esthetic, 2-technical and 1-biological) in comparison to 2 complications in the LDGC-CAD/CAM crown group (1-technical and 1-esthetic). The 6-year survival rates for MC crowns and LDGC-CAD/CAM crowns were 90.8% and 96%, respectively, whereas, the success rates were 83.4% and 96%, respectively. LDGC-CAD/CAM crowns proved to be a predictable, reliable and viable alternative to the “gold standard” MC crowns.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».