RETROSPECTIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION OF 1,314 CAST GOLD RESTORATIONS IN SERVICE FROM 1 TO 52 YEARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective clinical evaluation of 1,314 cast gold restorations in 114 patients placed by one practitioner was conducted. A very high percentage of patients contacted (114/116 [98.3%]) participated in the evaluation. Almost 90% of the restorations had been in service for over 9 years, 72% for over 20 years, and 45% from 25 to 52 years. All restorations had been cemented using zinc phosphate cement. The restorations were evaluated by independent evaluators in terms of marginal integrity, anatomic form, and surface texture, and 96% of the evaluations were excellent (Figures 1-5). Sixty restorations required removal and replacement, yielding an overall failure rate of 4.6% or a survival rate of 95.4%. The survival rates at various time periods were 97% at 9 years, 90.3% at 20 years, 94.9% at 25 years, 98% at 29 years, 96.9% at 39 years, and 94.1% for restorations in place > 40 years. It appears that properly fabricated cast gold inlays, onlays, partial veneer crowns, and full veneer crowns can provide extremely predictable, long-term restorative service. It is suggested that the use of such restorations should not be automatically precluded simply because they are gold colored. These restorations should be considered in patients who are more concerned with longevity than esthetics, and in those patients in whom placement of a conservative cast gold restoration would not result in an unesthetic display of metal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".