Conical zirconia telescoping into electroformed gold: A retrospective study of prostheses supported by teeth and/or implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telescopic prostheses are an evidence-based treatment modality, and conical zirconia crowns and electro-formed gold copings have been used for dentures supported by teeth and/or implants. PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the survival rates of zirconia-based tooth/implant restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 126 telescopic overdentures, all retained by conical zirconia crowns and electro-formed gold copings, were retrospectively evaluated and failures analyzed for abutment configurations. Survival rates and modifying factors were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank testing, and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: We evaluated observation periods of up to 11.5 years (mean: 45.25 ± 25.11 months). Five-year prosthesis survival was 96.9 ± 2.2% (95% CI: 92.6-100). Six dentures had been lost, and these failures were significantly associated with specific abutment configurations. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, the concept of conical zirconia telescoping into electro-formed gold provides a viable alternative to other telescopic designs used for removable dental prostheses. The concept is well suited especially for tooth/implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".