MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2627072877 · doi:10.1111/cid.12508

CAD/CAM‐fabricated ceramic implant‐supported single crowns made from lithium disilicate: Final results of a 5‐year prospective cohort study

2017· article· en· W2627072877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benedikt C. Spies, Stefano Pieralli, Kirstin Vach, Ralf‐Joachim Kohal

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium disilicateDentistryImplantMedicineDental porcelainMolarCrown (dentistry)OrthodonticsCeramicMaterials scienceSurgeryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background All‐ceramic bilayer systems suffer from technique‐sensitivity, resulting in increased technical complication rates. This might be overcome by monolithic reconstructions, facilitating digital workflows. Purpose To evaluate the clinical and patient‐reported outcome of CAD/CAM‐fabricated implant‐supported single crowns (ISCs) made of lithium disilicate (LS2) cemented on ceramic implants 5 years after implant installation. Materials and methods Twenty‐four patients were included in the study. All participants received a one‐piece ceramic implant in anterior (4 incisors) and posterior regions (10 premolars, 10 molars). LS2 crowns were computer‐aided designed (CAD), manufactured (CAM) and adhesively luted onto the implants. Follow‐ups were performed yearly up to 60 months after implant installation. The survival/success rates of the restorations were calculated according to modified US Public Health Service criteria as follows: Clinically relevant defects that could be repaired intraorally were accepted for survival, whereas small‐area chippings, roughness (ø < 2 mm), slightly soundable marginal gaps, minimal undercontours/overcontours, and tolerable color deviations were accepted for success. Kaplan‐Meier plots were used for the success/survival analyses. Furthermore, patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed by applying visual analog scales (VAS). Linear (PROMs) and logistic (USPHS criteria) mixed models were fitted to evaluate time effects on response variables. Results Twenty‐two ISCs could be evaluated 55.2 ± 4.2 months after prosthetic delivery. Two patients were reported as drop‐outs (1 died, 1 moved abroad). No failures were observed, resulting in 100% survival. At two ISCs, a major‐roughness had to be treated. This resulted in a Kaplan‐Meier success estimate of 91.7% (95%CI: 70.6%‐97.9%). Compared with pretreatment, all surveys at prosthetic delivery except for self‐esteem (P = .375) showed significantly improved VAS scores. No decrease in satisfaction could be observed over time until the end of follow‐up (P ≥ .056). Conclusion Concerning survival/success rates and PROMs, the evaluated crown‐implant system showed favorable mid‐term results. To date, there are no comparable data available for implant‐supported ISCs made of LS2.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207