Digitally Produced Fiber-Reinforced Composite Substructures for Three-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the probability of survival, Weibull modulus, characteristic strength, and failure modes of computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) substructures used for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-unit ISFDPs (first molar pontic) fabricated as a monolithic composite piece or as composite veneered on a CAD/CAM FRC substructure with either a 12-mm² or 3-mm² connector area (n = 18 each) were subjected to step-stress accelerated life testing in water. Use-level probability Weibull curves and the probability of survival were calculated. Fractographic analysis was performed under polarized light and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Fatigue did not accelerate the failure of any group, whereas prosthesis strength was the main factor in increased failure (β < 1). The probability Weibull contour plot showed no differences between the ISFDPs with 12 mm² and the monolithic composite ISFDP in characteristic strength (η = 643.5 N and 742.7 N, respectively) or Weibull modulus (6.7 and 5.8, respectively), whereas both were significantly higher than 3 mm² (444.91 N and 9.57). The probability of survival was not statistically different between groups at 100,000 mission cycles at 300 N. Differences were observed in fatigue failures above 800 N; monolithic composite ISFDPs failed catastrophically, whereas those with CAD/CAM FRC substructures presented veneer/composite cohesive or adhesive failures. Cracks evolved from the occlusal contact toward the margins of the cohesively failed composite, and in CAD/CAM FRC prostheses, competing failure modes of cracks developing at the connector area with those at the indentation contact were observed. CONCLUSION: The probability of survival did not differ between CAD/CAM FRC with either 3-mm² or 12-mm² connector areas, monolithic composite, or metal-ceramic ISFDPs previously tested under the same methodology. However, differences in failure modes were detected between groups.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".