Flexural Properties of Chairside CAD/CAM Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All-ceramic dental materials are a remarkable alternative to other restorative materials due to their unique biocompatibility and superior esthetic appeal [1,2].They have excellent esthetics, high strength and acceptable fit, especially with the introduction of new processing methods [3], such as the Computer-Aided Design/Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems.The availability of manufactured blocks has enabled the fabrication of indirect esthetic restorations in a single visit [4,5].According to the mode of laboratory processing, highly accurate ceramic restorations are ei-ther pressed, milled, slip-cast or sintered; and according to their chemical composition, they can be further classified into high-and low-leucite, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and magnesia and alumina core reinforced types [6].Due to the wider range of available CAD/CAM blocks having diverse properties, it can be sometimes challenging to make the proper selection for specific clinical situations [2].Dental ceramics, known to be brittle in nature with low tensile strengths [7], are extremely sensitive to inherently growing surface defects and
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.010 | 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".