Clinical Bonding of <scp>R</scp>esin <scp>N</scp>ano <scp>C</scp>eramic Restorations to Zirconia Abutments: A Case Series within a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background New dental materials are introduced and promoted in the field without extensive clinical testing. Using those materials in a clinical setting might result in unacceptable early failure rates. Purpose The purpose of this paper was to analyze bonding of a new dental restorative material to either zirconia stock abutments or zirconia customized abutments. Materials and Methods Fifty participants seeking single implant treatment were included in a prospective study. Resin Nano Ceramic (RNC, Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) crowns were digitally manufactured and extraorally bonded to either a stock or a customized zirconia abutment (ZirDesign and ATLANTIS, DENTSPLY Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) by means of a resin composite cement (RelyX Ultimate in combination with Scotchbond Universal, 3M ESPE), strictly following the manufacturer's recommendations. The final restorations were screw‐retained to the implants and followed during 12 months. Primary outcome parameter was uncompromised survival of the restoration, and secondary outcome parameter was mode of failure. Results No implants were lost. The uncompromised survival rate of the RNC crowns bonded to zirconia abutments after 1 year of clinical service was only 14% (n = 7). Catastrophic failure occurred in three cases (6%), whereas bonding failure between RNC crowns and zirconia abutments occurred in 80% of the cases (n = 40) within the first year of service. No statistical significant difference in uncompromised survival rate could be identified between abutment types (χ2 = 1.495, p = .209). Uncompromised survival rate after 1 year was highly significantly different (χ2 = 104.173, p < .001) from a reference standard, which was set at 95%. Conclusion RNC crowns luted to stock and customized zirconia implant abutments with the particular resin composite cement in this trial have a poor prognosis, regardless of the abutment type used.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".