Restoration of endodontically treated teeth with carbon fibre posts--a prospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A prospective study was started in 1995 to evaluate the success of carbon fibre reinforced epoxy resin (CFRR) posts used to restore endodontically treated teeth. All the teeth in the study had lost more than 50% of their coronal structure. METHODS: Fifty-nine carbon fibre Composiposts cemented with Metabond and built up with Core Paste cores were placed into the teeth of 47 patients. Each tooth received a full-coverage restoration (porcelain fused to metal crown) and was followed for 6.7-45.4 months (average = 28.0 months, standard deviation = 10.7). RESULTS: Results for 52 teeth in 42 patients were analyzed. There were no fractures. The overall failure rate was 7.7% and the cumulative survival rate was 89.6% at the end of the follow-up period. The only statistically significant finding (p = 0.04) was that posts in lower premolars were at higher risk of failure. CONCLUSION: CFRR posts are among the most predictable systems available today. CFRR posts in the upper anterior teeth are associated with a higher success rate and longer life than those placed in premolars, especially lower premolars. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence that supports the use of CFRR posts in the restoration of endodontically treated teeth.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".