Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate of Endodontically Treated Mandibular Damaged Molars Based on Different Preparation Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of 2 different types of all-ceramic crown using immediate dentin sealing (IDS), obtained using a CAD/CAM system on molars with different preparations. Forty extracted lower molars were endodontically treated and divided into four groups (n = 10) according to the dental preparation. Group 1 (SP0) was prepared without filling the pulp chamber and crown-root junction was located at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Group 2 (SP1) was prepared without filling the pulp chamber and crown-root junction was located 1-mm above the CEJ. Groups 3 and 4 contained a flat preparation surface with no axial wall height. Group 3 (CP0) was made IDS with complete filling of the pulp chamber with composite resin and crown-root junction was located at the CEJ. Group 4 (CP1) was prepared with complete filling of the pulp chamber and crown-root junction was located 1-mm above the CEJ. All groups were restored with CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic crowns. Specimens were subjected to the fracture test and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Fracture mode was determined using a stereoscopic microscope, classified as repairable or nonrepairable, and analyzed using Fischer's exact test. Results indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of fracture resistance or fracture pattern (p >0.05). Fracture resistance was the lowest in the SP0 group, followed by the SP1 group (1634.38 N) of CP0 (1821.50 N), and it was the highest in the CP1 group. There was a predominance of nonrepairable fractures and there were no significant differences in the fracture resistance and fracture mode of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate molar all-ceramic crowns. Endodontically treated molars teeth might be restored with endocrowns or all-ceramic crowns on flat preparation; however tooth fracture failures that affect reliability of these types of restorations should be considered.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".