MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503390142

Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures--a literature review with presentation of a novel approach.

2001· article· en· W1503390142 on OpenAlexaff
Omar El‐Mowafy, M H Rubo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryPresentation (obstetrics)DenturesLongevityCastingComputer scienceOrthodonticsMaterials scienceMedicineSurgeryComposite materialGerontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) have been in our profession for over 20 years. The aim of this work was to provide some background about their development and the factors that influence their clinical longevity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A recent literature search conducted using MEDLINE along with analysis of bibliographies of published papers revealed a considerable number of publications of RBFPDs since their first introduction in the mid-1970s. Critical analysis of these publications revealed some important and interesting key facts. These were divided into sections about developments in the treatment of the fit surface of the casting, bonding systems, and prosthesis design. A separate section about factors that affect the longevity of RBFPDs is included, along with a detailed description of preparation designs of an anterior and a posterior RBFPD. RESULTS: The typical design of RBFPDs is characterized by a high degree of conservation of tooth structure of abutments compared with designs of conventional fixed prostheses. While the early RBFPDs were associated with a high frequency of premature failure--mostly because of debonding--developments in preparation design and bonding techniques as well as better understanding of the appropriate type of metal alloy to be used and the best preparation method for enhanced bonding have led to significant improvements in their long-term survival. CONCLUSION: RBFPDs should be considered viable treatment options for those clinical situations that are best suited for their use. Preparation design, cement type, and casting alloy type as well as surface treatment are among the most important factors that influence longevity of RBFPDs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207