MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155559143 · doi:10.2341/19-107-lit

Long-term Clinical Performance of Composite Resin or Ceramic Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3155559143 on OpenAlex

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

VenueOperative Dentistry · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInlayDentistryDental porcelainMeta-analysisComposite numberResin compositeDental restorationOverlayCeramicOrthodonticsMaterials scienceComposite materialMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical Relevance Composite resin or ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays can achieve high long-term survival and success rates. SUMMARY Objective: This study evaluated the long-term clinical performance and complications of composite resin or ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays, as well as identified the factors that might influence the clinical outcome of the restorations. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases until April 30, 2019, without language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials, clinical retrospective, and prospective cohort studies with a mean follow-up period of five years were included. Two reviewers extracted the study data independently. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied for quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed by the random-effects model and fixed-effects model. Results: After removal of duplicates, 2818 studies were identified. Finally, 13 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis based on retrospective and prospective cohort studies. The cumulative survival rate and success rate of composite resin inlays, onlays, and overlays were 91% and 84% after five years of follow-up, respectively. The survival rates of ceramic inlays and onlays were 90% at 5 years, 89% at 8 years and 85% at 10 years, while the success rates of ceramic inlays and onlays were 88% at 5 years and 77% at 10 years. Secondary caries and endodontic complications were the predominant failures for composite resin inlays, onlays, and overlays, while restoration fractures and endodontic complications were the main failures for ceramic inlays and onlays. No direct association between parafuntional habits and bruxism and the fractures of restorations was found. Nonvital teeth and multiple-surface restorations tended to increase the risk of failure. Regarding other factors influencing the clinical outcome, no definite conclusion could be drawn due to inconsistent results. Conclusions: The long-term clinical outcomes have been demonstrated to achieve high survival and success rates based on 10-year data for ceramic inlays and onlays, as well as 5-year data for resin inlays, onlays, and overlays.

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)0.001
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.295 · 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