Fracture analysis of monolithic CAD‐CAM crowns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the integrity of zirconia, lithium disilicate, and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate CAD-CAM crowns after being subjected to cyclic loading and then subjected to static loading until fracture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia (Zirkonzahn), lithium disilicate (LDS, Ivoclar Vivadent AG), and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (ZLS) (Vita Suprinity, Vita Zahnfabrik) monolithic crowns were milled (n = 6). The crowns were bonded using composite resin cements and subjected to cyclic loading under wet conditions. Three specimens from each group were loaded for 10 000 cycles, and the other three specimens were loaded for 50 000 cycles with 250 N. Specimens were subjected to loading until fracture. Load-to-fracture values were analyzed with 2-way (ANOVA) and Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (α = 0.05). Specimens from each group were examined using an SEM. RESULTS: Mean load-to-fracture values among materials were significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). No significant effect of the number of cycles was found on the load-to-fracture values of crowns (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Load-to-fracture values of zirconia were higher than those of LDS, which were higher than those of ZLS. The number of fatigue loading cycles did not affect the load-to-fracture of the tested crowns for a given material. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: More research needs to be conducted before considering the routine use of ZLS for molars in patients with high risk of parafunctional habits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".