Spectrophotometric analysis of fluorescent zirconia abutments compared to “conventional” zirconia abutments: A within subject controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Zirconia abutments are frequently used for implant‐supported single crowns. Even though demonstrating esthetic benefits compared to metal abutments, zirconia abutments lead to an increased brightness of the peri‐implant mucosa compared to natural teeth and are not ideal from an esthetic point of view. Purpose To test whether or not a fluorescent hybrid zirconia abutment offers superior esthetics compared to a non‐fluorescent one‐piece zirconia abutment based on spectrophotometric analysis. Materials and Methods In 24 patients with 24 single‐tooth implants, 2 types of reconstructions were fabricated: a directly veneered one‐piece zirconia abutment/crown (control) and a directly veneered fluorescent hybrid zirconia abutment/crown (test). Spectrophotometric assessment was performed: prior to abutment insertion (WA), at abutment try‐in (A), at the try‐in of the final crowns (C). Color differences (ΔE) were assessed compared to the gingiva of natural teeth (T) and between the reconstructions. Results At abutment try‐in, ΔE values were 8.49 ± 3.59 for AControl and 8.27 ± 4.03 for ATest compared to T. At crown insertion, ΔE values were 7.61 ± 4.03 for CControl and 8.32 ± 3.57 for CTest compared to T. The difference in ΔE values between AControl and ATest was 0.23 ± 2.54 (P = .37), whereas the difference in ΔE values between CControl and CTest was −0.66 ±3.45 (P = .48). For all cases with a mucosal thickness ≤2 mm, the comparison between CControl and CTest was significant in favor of the control group (P = .03). Conclusions Both types of reconstructions were similar in terms of esthetics. Incases with a mucosal thickness of <2 mm, the soft tissue discoloration compared to the natural gingiva was more pronounced for the fluorescent hybrid zirconia reconstructions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".