Influence of crown design and material on chipping-resistance of all-ceramic molar crowns: An in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: All-ceramic restorations have become popular and the trend is ongoing. However, the incidence of chipping within the veneering layer has been a commonly reported failure in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of ceramic crown design (monolithic vs bi-layered) and material on the chipping resistance of molar crowns submitted to compressive cyclic loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty identical epoxy resin replicas of a mandibular first molar with crown preparation were divided into 5 groups (n = 10) as follows: the MLD group - monolithic CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns; 30 zirconia cores were veneered with either feldspathic porcelain by hand-layering technique (ZHL) or by heat-pressing technique (ZVP), or with milled LDGC veneers and subsequently fused to the cores (ZLD); 10 porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns acted as a control group. All crowns were cemented using Panavia® F2.0 resin cement (Kuraray Dental, Tokyo, Japan). After storage in water at 37°C for 1 week, the specimens were subjected to compressive cyclic loading at the mesiobuccal cusp which was tilted at 30°. A load cycle of 50-450 N was used and specimens were maintained in an aqueous environment throughout 500,000 cycles in a universal testing machine (Instron, Norwood, USA). The data was statistically analyzed at 5% significant level with Fisher's exact test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Significant differences in survival rates of the specimens used in the groups (p < 0.001) were found. Specimens of the PFM, ZHL and ZVP groups underwent failures at different stages of the 500,000 fatigue cycles, while specimens of the MLD and ZLD groups survived the entire fatigue test. ZHL and ZVP crowns had the worst chipping-resistance, while PFM crowns performed slightly better. The Kaplan-Meier test revealed significantly higher survival rates for the MLD and ZLD specimens compared to the other 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LDGC as a monolithic molar crown and as a veneer over a zirconia core resulted in superior resistance to cuspal chipping.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
In vitro study of crown design and material on chipping resistance of all-ceramic molar crowns; the object is dental materials.
The study tests dental crown materials rather than research itself.
In vitro dental materials study of crown chipping resistance; clinical materials science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".