Marginal adaptation and microleakage of Procera AllCeram crowns with four cements.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of different cements on microleakage and marginal adaptation of porcelain crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty extracted molars were divided into two groups. Teeth in one group were prepared to receive Procera AllCeram crowns, whereas the other group was prepared to receive metal-ceramic crowns. Copings were made following standard techniques, and groups were divided for cementation with zinc phosphate, glass-ionomer, resin-modified glassionomer, or resin cement. Specimens were subjected to thermocycling prior to microleakage testing, then sectioned. Microleakage was scored using a five-point scale; marginal adaptation was assessed with a traveling microscope. RESULTS: A significant association was found between cement type and degree of microleakage. With zinc phosphate, 76% of Procera AllCeram and 90% of metal-ceramic copings exhibited extensive microleakage. With glass-ionomer, 49% of Procera AllCeram and 66% of metal-ceramic copings had 0 microleakage scores; with resin-modified glass-ionomer, 10% of Procera AllCeram and 84% of metal-ceramic copings had 0 microleakage scores. With resin cement, 34% of Procera AllCeram and 96% of metal-ceramic copings exhibited 0 microleakage. Procera AllCeram copings had a significantly larger mean marginal gap (54 microm) compared to metal ceramic (29 microm). CONCLUSION: In both types of crowns, the use of resin cement resulted in the highest percentage of 0 microleakage scores, whereas the zinc phosphate cement resulted in the highest percentage of extensive microleakage.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it