In Vitro Fracture Toughness of Commercial Y‐TZP Ceramics: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to assess research methods used to determine the fracture toughness of Y-TZP ceramics in order to systematically evaluate the accuracy of each method with regard to potential influencing factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six databases were searched for studies up to April 2013. The terms "tough*," "critical stress intensity factor," "zirconi*," "yttri*," "dent*," "zirconia," "zirconium," and "stress" were searched. Titles and abstracts were screened, and literature that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was selected for a full-text reading. Test conditions with potential influence on fracture toughness were extracted from each study. RESULTS: Ten laboratory studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant variation in relation to test method, ambient conditions, applied/indentation load, number of specimens, and geometry and dimension of the specimen. The results were incomparable due to high variability and missing information. Therefore, 10 parameters were listed to be followed to standardize future studies. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variation in research methods affected the fracture toughness reported for Y-TZP ceramics among the selected studies; single-edge-precracked beam and chevron-notched-beam seem to be the most recommended methods to determine Y-TZP fracture toughness; the indentation methods have several limitations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The accurate calculation of toughness values is fundamental because overestimating toughness data in a clinical situation can negatively affect the lifetime of the restoration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it