Dimensional Changes of Yttria‐stabilized Zirconia under Different Preparation Designs and Sintering Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the linear and volumetric dimensional changes that occur throughout the fabrication process of monolithic 4.5-6% yttria-stabilized zirconia copings under the influence of different preparation designs and two sintering protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A titanium master die was fabricated using Atlantis core file implant-abutment. Six copings were designed virtually according to different finish line offsets and coping thicknesses, with four equidistant occlusal posts for linear measurements. Zirconia copings were milled using IPS e.max ZirCAD LT zirconia blanks. The experimental groups according to the coping designs were the following: G1: 0.5 mm finish line offset, 0.5 mm thickness; G2: 0.5 mm finish line offset, 1.0 mm thickness; G3: 0.5 mm finish line offset, 1.5 mm thickness; G4: 1.2 mm finish line offset, 0.5 mm thickness; G5: 1.2 mm finish line offset, 1.0 mm thickness; G6: 1.2 mm finish line offset, 1.5 mm thickness. Six samples per group were sintered by standard sintering (SS) and the other six by fast sintering (FS). Linear and volumetric measurements were taken at the three fabrication stages (virtual design, milling stage, and sintering) by using an intraoral scanner and imported as the .stl file to Meshmixer software for analysis. Statistical analysis was performed by a linear mixed effect model via statistical software R (R Core team, 2018). RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between the coping design group, stage of fabrication and sintering protocol on the linear (F = 4.451, p < 0.001) and volumetric (F = 2.716; p < 0.001) dimensional changes. Standard sintering G1 showed the smallest linear and dimensional changes among the groups compared to the reference design. Sintered copings had shrunk on average 1.32% within SS and 1.54% within FS linearly and 3.82% within SS and 3.90% within FS volumetrically compared to the initial design parameters. CONCLUSION: The linear and volumetric dimensional changes did not differ significantly between standard and fast sintering protocols, and the preparation designs had more influence on the dimensional changes compared to sintering protocols.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".