Factors Influencing the Survival of Preformed Zirconia Crowns in Children Treated under General Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the success of zirconia crowns placed in the anterior teeth of children and evaluate the impact of pulp therapy of the tooth on the rate of failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 anterior teeth of 20 children aged between 3 and 5 years who had undergone the placement of zirconia crowns under general anesthesia were followed up for 24 months. Kaplan-Meier Survival curves were plotted for the estimation of two-year survival time. The outcomes for teeth that had received pulp therapy were compared to those that had not received pulp therapy. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of 70 crowns observed over a two-year period showed that mean survival time for the crowns was 38.7 months with a confidence interval ranging from 38.1 months to 39.3 months. When the survival of the crowns was observed based on the presence or absence of symptoms, it was observed that only 4 out of the 70 crowns were symptomatic (with or without crown loss) at the end of two years, giving a success rate of 94.3%. The mean survival time was also increased to 39.5 months (confidence interval 39.15-39.98 months). CONCLUSION: Zirconia crowns provide an acceptable level of success and longevity. Crowns placed on teeth after pulp therapy are more likely to fail than those placed on teeth without pulp therapy.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".