MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microleakage of Porcelain and Composite Machined Crowns Cemented with Self-Adhesive or Conventional Resin Cement

2010· article· en· W1915625593 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCERECCrown (dentistry)VarnishAdhesiveComposite materialCementComposite numberDentistryCeramic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Resistance of machined crowns to microleakage when cemented with new self-adhesive cements has not been fully investigated. This study evaluated microleakage of machined crowns milled from porcelain and composite blocks and bonded to teeth with self-adhesive and conventional resin cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two freshly extracted premolars of similar shape and size were sterilized and mounted in resin blocks. Teeth received standard crown preparations with 1-mm circumferential shoulder finish line, flat occlusal surface reduced by 2 mm, and ideal angle of convergence. Prepared teeth were divided into two equal groups and assigned to either porcelain (Vita Mark II, Vident) or composite (Paradigm MZ100, 3M ESPE) blocks for crown fabrication. Optical impressions were captured for each tooth with the intraoral camera of a CEREC 3D machine. Crowns were designed and milled from both materials. Each group was then subdivided into two subgroups (n = 8) according to cement used (self-adhesive resin cement, RelyX Unicem, 3M ESPE or resin cement with self-etching adhesive, Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray). Following seating, a 5-kg weight was applied on the occlusal surface of the crown for 5 minutes. Specimens were then stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours. Specimens were thermocycled for 3000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C, then coated with nail varnish and immersed in a 2.0% basic red fuchsine dye solution for 24 hours. Teeth were then rinsed and sectioned mesiodistally and assessed under magnification for microleakage. A five-point scale was used to score degree of microleakage. Data were statistically analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test. RESULTS: Crown material had no significant effect on microleakage (p= 0.67); however, cement type had a significant effect (p < 0.0001), with Panavia F 2.0 resulting in lower microleakage scores than RelyX Unicem. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the self-adhesive cement, the resin cement with separate primer/bonding agent resulted in significantly lower microleakage scores, irrespective of crown material.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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