Zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM: a five-year follow-up prospective clinical study of 9 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate clinical results of the passive fit of the substructure in the Toronto bridge and the chipping or delamination of the ceramic veneering on the zirconia-support, after 5 years, in nine patients rehabilitated with zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM technology. METHODS: A total of nine healthy patient fully edentulous in the upper and lower jaws with non-contributory past medical anamnesis needing full fixed total prosthesis maxilla and mandible were included in this clinical study, where a total 9 mandibles and 9 jaws were treated. The inclusion criteria in order for a patient to participate in the study were: a signed consent form, fully edentulous in the upper and lower jaws, required a full fixed total prosthesis restoration. The exclusion criteria were age limitation of less than 18 years old, chemotherapy, head and neck radiation therapy, diabetes or periodontal disease, smoking and severe illness. All patients received zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM technology. The primary outcome of this study was to examine the survival rate of the zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM technology during the observation period. Any chipping or delamination of the zirconia crowns of the restorations was considered as failure. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the passive fit of the substructure on the implants, loose of occlusal screws, implant survival and satisfactory occlusion. RESULTS: In 5 years of follow-up no evidence of chipping or delamination of the ceramic veneering on the zirconia crown supported were observed. Fifteen finished protesis (93.75%) showed satisfactory occlusion and only one case (6.25%) required significant occlusal adjustment. During the first year recall all bars were stable (100%) no mobility of protheses was recorded. After 5 years all bars were stable (100%) and no mobility of protheses was recorded. CONCLUSION: The computerized workflow for the process of building bar and prosthesis ensures reproducible results and excellent adaptation and passive insertion of them, as well as conditions for avoiding mechanical complications and guarantees stability of screw-implant abutments.
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) | 0.000 | 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".