The influence of altering sintering protocols on the optical and mechanical properties of zirconia: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As a result of advancements in chairside technology and speed sintering techniques and increased esthetic demands of patients, efforts have been made to produce monolithic zirconia restorations that are highly translucent, strong, and dense. While methods for processing zirconia are well known, there is a tendency to modify the process parameters with the aim of decreasing the overall processing time and, in particular, the sintering time. This review provides clinicians with scientific evidence of the effects of altering sintering parameters used for dental zirconia on its microstructure, phase transformation, and mechanical and optical properties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of Embase and Medline using Boolean operators was performed to locate relevant articles. RESULTS: Eleven articles were selected for this review. The following characteristics of monolithic zirconia have been confirmed to be affected by alterations in sintering: the microstructure, mechanical properties, optical properties, wear behavior, and low thermal degradation. CONCLUSIONS: The alteration of sintering parameters has been found to alter the grain size, wear behavior, and translucency of zirconia. There is a lack of clinical studies that investigate the influence of altering sintering parameters or methods on the clinical performance of monolithic zirconia restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Alteration of sintering parameters alters the microstructural, mechanical, and optical properties of zirconia. This will consequently impact the clinical performance of zirconia prostheses. Future clinical investigations are encouraged to support these in vitro findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".