Comparative Evaluation of Cellular Response to Three Types of Zolid Surface Full Contour: Glazing, Polishing, and CO2 Laser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Zirconia ceramics have recently been widely used in dentistry because these materials are very favorable for chemical, dimensional stability, mechanical strength and hardness, Zolid FX (Ceramill Zolid FX, Amann Girrbach AG) is a type of zirconia. In this study, we have tried to measure the effects of different methods of surface preparation of full-contour restoration on the degree of material release and cellular response, so that we can recommend a method with lower tissue damage.Methods: In this study, Twenty blocks were prepared by CAD / CAM with dimensions of 5.5 mm in diameter and 3 mm in thickness and randomly divided into four groups. The laser used in this study is a co2 laser (Ultra-dream pluse, guro-gu seul, Korea). Comparison of the groups with the intact group was carried out two by two. The control group was compared by ANOVA and the groups with significant differences (with a significant percentage of 0.05) were compared by TUKEY statistical test.Conclusion and Results: Delivering one-stage, non-glazed-polished zirconium restorations can result in incompatible cellular response and is detrimental to the health of the periodontal tissue surrounding the restoration. It is also recommended that if the restoration due to the adjusting of clinician lose the glazed layer should not be delivered intact, at least prepare by polishing method, also if the laser is available in the clinic, then the surface restoration will be prepare using it, although it has not been routinely used due to lesser access to lasers in clinics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".