Reliability of Reduced-thickness and Thinly Veneered Lithium Disilicate Crowns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation hypothesized that the reliability of reduced-thickness monolithic lithium disilicate crowns is high relative to that of veneered zirconia (Y-TZP) and comparable with that of metal ceramic (MCR) systems. CAD/CAM first mandibular molar full-crown preparations were produced with uniform thicknesses of either 1.0-mm or 2.0-mm occlusal and axial reduction, then replicated in composite for standard crown dies. Monolithic 1.0-mm (MON) and 2.0-mm CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns, the latter with a buccal thin veneer (BTV) of 0.5 mm, were fabricated and then sliding-contact-fatigued (step-stress method) until failure or suspension (n = 18/group). Crack evolution was followed, and fractography of post mortem specimens was performed and compared with that of clinical specimens. Use level probability Weibull calculation (use load = 1,200 N) showed interval overlaps between MON and BTV. There was no significant difference between the Weibull characteristic failure loads of MON and BTV (1,535 N [90% CI 1,354-1,740] and 1,609 N [90% CI 1,512-1,712], respectively), which were significantly higher than that of Y-TZP (370 N [90% CI 322-427]) and comparable with that of MCR (1,304 N [90% CI 1,203-1,414]), validating the study hypothesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".