Influence of the Fabrication Technique on the Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Ceramic Onlays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This study aimed to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of partial coverage crowns (ceramic onlays) fabricated with Press, CEREC BlueCam, and CEREC OmniCam systems, using two preparation designs and evaluating the internal discrepancies at different locations. Two phantom maxillary premolars (master teeth) received different preparation designs, with (BX) and without (NB) a modified occlusal box with round internal angles. Sixty IPS e-max ceramic restorations were fabricated with three systems: Press (n=20), CEREC BlueCam (n=20), and CEREC OmniCam (n=20). Both marginal and internal discrepancy width were measured by using a stereomicroscope at ×25 magnification. The data were evaluated statistically using analysis of variance followed by Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test (α=0.05). The ceramic restorations fabricated with the Press system presented significantly smaller marginal and internal disadaptations than the BlueCam and OmniCam CEREC systems (p<0.0001). Regarding the preparation designs, preparation BX presented the smallest marginal discrepancies for all fabrication systems and larger internal discrepancies than for restorations fabricated with the Press system. The occlusal location presented a larger internal discrepancy compared with the axial locations. Although the three systems resulted in the fabrication of restorations within a clinically acceptable adaptation with marginal discrepancies below 100 μm, the Press system presented the smallest marginal and internal discrepancies. An improved marginal adaptation was observed in the preparation design with a modified occlusal box with rounded internal angles.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".