MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503310396 · doi:10.17219/dmp/62196

Flexural Properties of Chairside CAD/CAM Materials

2016· article· en· W2503310396 on OpenAlexaff
Rania El-Saady Badawy, Omar El‐Mowafy, Laura E. Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueDental and Medical Problems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexural strengthFlexural modulusNanoceramicSignificant differenceComposite materialMaterials scienceCrown (dentistry)Three point flexural testBendingCERECCeramicMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. New blocks for milling crowns using CAD-CAM technology were introduced to the profession. It is important to determine mechanical properties of such materials since they are used for the fabrication of crowns used in stress-bearing areas.Objectives. This study determined the flexural strength (FS) and the flexural modulus (FM) of 2 glass-ceramic and 2 nanoceramic resin composite CAD/CAM blocks used for chair-side crown fabricationMaterial and Methods. Rectangular specimens were cut from 4 different CAD-CAM blocks. Specimens were 3 mm wide, 1.2 mm thick 14 mm long. Specimens were subjected to 3-point bending test following ISO guidelines (ISO 6872) at cross-head speed of 0.5mm/min. The flexural strength (FS) and the flexural modulus (FM) were calculated and the data statistically-analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Games Howell multiple comparison tests at 95% confidence interval.Results. Means and SDs of FS (MPa) for VE, LU, E-max, E-max-U, CD, CD-U were: 123.97(14.84), 168.07(16.70), 334.10(54.3), 128.90(17.6), 177.32(37.54) and 147.61(26.62) respectively. For FM means and SDs were: 17.18(2.03), 9.75(0.51), 44.8(5.52), 35.14(7.46), 32.96(6.55) and 38.90(8.03) for VE, LU, E-max, E-max-U, CD, CD-U, respectively. ANOVA revealed a highly significant difference among group means (p < 0.0001) for both FS and FM. E-max had significantly highest mean FS and FM values among all groups, while VE showed lowest FS and LU lowest FM means. Firing and or crystallization positively affected both flexural properties of E-max, but only FS of CD.Conclusion. A wide variability in mean FS and FM was observed among the tested materials. Generally, glassceramic based materials had superior flexural properties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental and Medical ProblemsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207