A new design for post and core restorations implementing positive locking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of a post and core restoration is a trade-off between a series of requirements to achieve stability of the post itself, the surrounding root dentine and the joint between tooth and post, while maintaining a sufficient apical seal of the remaining root canal filling. Post and core restoration systems come in a variety of different designs and dimensions, where each has its specific strength and weakness. With the exception of threaded versions, posts normally rely on either chemical and/or frictional locking between the post and the remaining root. Failure due to fatigue of the joint or root fracture due to overloading of the dentine is a frequent failure mode, especially for posts anchoring removable prostheses. Perforation of the root in an attempt to maximize the post length is a main cause for failure, too. A new design is proposed which uses a short but large diameter post. The risk of decementation is reduced by positive locking. A cavity with an undercut is prepared into the root, into which the post is fitted. Once joined, the post cannot be separated from the tooth without destruction of either the root or the post. The principle of the new design uses preparation tools and a post which is spread at the bottom. A cylindrically prepared hole is re-shaped to a defined inverse taper with the wider diameter at the bottom of the hole. A cylindrical post is inserted and spread at the bottom to a matching shape after placement. A first in vitro test of the stability showed that the positive locking provides at least as good extraction resistance as conventional post without the critical reliance on the luting/bonding agent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".