Clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology: A systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of ceramic materials and the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology for the fabrication of complete-coverage restorations has significantly increased in the last decade. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rate of anterior and posterior monolithic and bilayered lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) CAD/CAM crowns, and to identify the types of complications associated with the main clinical outcomes reported in clinical trials. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched by 2 independent reviewers for clinical studies published between 2006 and 2019, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The electronic search was supplemented by a hand search. Quality assessment for the included studies was performed. Qualitative and quantitative data was extracted from each study. Out of 219 studies, 6 studies that evaluated LDGC CAD/CAM crowns were identified and used for data extraction. The included studies had 154 participants, who received 204 crowns. The shortto medium-term survival and success rates were high. Biological complications occurred more frequently than technical complications. No esthetic complications were reported. This review indicated that the medium-term survival rate of LDGC CAD/CAM crowns was high. Further multicenter studies with longer follow-ups and larger sample sizes are needed in order to augment the data already in existence.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it