Fit of <scp>tooth‐supported</scp> zirconia single crowns—A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to systematically map all the factors that influence the fit and adaptation of zirconia crowns and/or copings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The investigational strategy involved carrying out an electronic search between December 1, 2009 and September 1, 2019 through the Embase and Medline databases using Boolean operators to locate appropriate articles. RESULTS: A total of 637 articles were discovered after the removal of duplicates, and 46 of these were selected for evaluation. Further, a quality assessment was performed using GRADE evaluation criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder finish line preparations had slightly better marginal fit compared to chamfer finish lines. Crowns obtained from digital impressions had comparable to superior marginal adaptation compared to conventional impressions. Increasing cement space showed to improve zirconia crown adaptation. Cementation and veneering zirconia frameworks found to increase the marginal and internal gaps. Limited information is available on the effect of the alteration of sintering time/Temperature and/or sintering techniques on the adaptation of zirconia crowns. Most of the selected studies had a moderate quality assessment evaluation. Future studies could investigate the chair-side, ultra-fast sintering effect on the marginal gap of zirconia crowns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".