MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025350058 · doi:10.7912/c2/1662

Longevity of Crown Margin Repairs Using Glass Ionomer: A Retrospective Study

2020· dissertation· en· W3025350058 on OpenAlex
Justin Watson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIUScholarWorks (Indiana University) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevityMargin (machine learning)Glass ionomer cementIonomerCrown (dentistry)Forensic engineeringEngineeringMedicineDentistryMaterials scienceComposite materialComputer scienceGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Repair of crown margins may extend the functional life of existing crowns. However, the longevity of such treatment is unknown. This study determined the survival time of crown margin repairs (CMR) with glass-ionomer (GI) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Methods: We queried axiUm (Exan Group, Coquitlam, BC, Canada) database for permanent teeth that underwent CMR in the Graduate Operative Dentistry Clinic, Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD), Indianapolis, Ind., USA, from January 1, 2006 through January 1, 2018. Since there is no CDT code for the CMR procedure, CDT codes for resin-composite and GI restorations (D23XX) were queried; these patients also had treatment notes that indicated CMR. The final data set included patient ID, birth date, gender, dates of treatments, CDT codes, tooth type, tooth surface and existing findings. Two examiners developed guidelines for record review and manually reviewed the clinical notes of patient records to confirm CMR. Only records that were confirmed with the presence of CMR were retained in the final dataset for survival analysis. Survival time was calculated by Kaplan-Meier statistics and a Cox Proportional Hazards model was performed to assess the influence of selected variables (p < 0.05). Results: 214 teeth (115 patients) with CMR were evaluated. Patient average age was 69.4  11.7 years old. Posterior teeth accounted for 78.5 percent (n = 168) of teeth treated. CMRs using GI had a projected 5-year survival rate of 62.9 percent (K-M Analysis) and an 8.9 percent annual failure rate. Cox Proportional Hazards Regression analysis revealed that none of the factors examined (age, gender, tooth type) affected time to failure. Conclusion: CMRs may extend the longevity of crowns with defective margins. Larger EHR studies or case control studies are needed to investigate other variables, such as the caries risk status or the severity of defects that may affect the survival rate of CMRs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it