Management of extensive carious lesions in permanent molars of a child with nonmetallic bonded restorations--a case report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The badly decayed molar teeth of a 12-year-old were restored using resin composite and ceramic restorations. The maxillary first left permanent molar, which had an extensive carious lesion that had destroyed most of the coronal hard tissues of the tooth, was restored to shape and function with a heat-treated resin composite onlay restoration. The restoration was followed up for two years. The mandibular right first molar had a failing large amalgam restoration with extensive recurrent caries. After a three-month period of pulp-capping, the tooth was restored with a bonded ceramic onlay restoration. A nine-month follow-up of this restoration is provided. The maxillary right first molar, which also had a failing large amalgam/resin composite restoration, was restored with a direct resin composite restoration. Under traditional treatment regimens, these extensive cavities would have been treated using more invasive procedures such as pin-retained restorations or elective root canal therapy, post placement, core build-up and crowning. Bonded non-metallic restorations avoid the trauma, time and cost that accompany such extensive procedures and offer a more conservative approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".