The use of resin cements in restorative dentistry to overcome retention problems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of resin cements in combination with dentin bonding agents can result in superior attachment of prostheses to tooth structure. This paper describes four clinical cases in which dentin-bonded resin cements were used to overcome retention problems. In the first case, a detached fixed partial denture, which was in good condition when separated, was recemented to abutment teeth prepared with less-than-ideal angle of convergence. In the second case, a detached all-porcelain crown was recemented with a dentin-bonded resin cement after appropriate surface treatment. In the third case, a porcelain-fused-to-metal crown made for a molar tooth was cemented to a short clinical crown, avoiding crown-lengthening surgery. In the fourth case, a 3-unit fixed partial denture was recemented to abutments with less-than-ideal supporting features. Dentin-bonded resin cements can help to extend the life of detached prostheses until the patient is financially prepared for replacement or it can help to avoid crown-lengthening surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".