Longevity of Polymer-Infiltrated Ceramic Network and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the existing literature to assess the clinical survival and success of PICN and ZLS indirect restorations as the clinical evidence for them remains lacking. PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, LILACs, and SciElo databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 1 February 2021. Clinical trials and cohort studies published in English were included while case studies, case series, and in vitro studies were excluded. Results were analyzed qualitatively and a meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed. A strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT) analysis was conducted and risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane RoB tools. An electronic search through the databases yielded 2454 articles, of which 825 remained after duplicate removal. Five studies investigating PICN and four investigating ZLS indirect restorations remained after assessing for eligibility. The overall survival rate of PICN over 1 year was 99.6% and 99.2% over 2 years. The overall survival rate of ZLS over 1 year was 99%. The main mode of failure for both materials was catastrophic fracture. One study had a high RoB, four had a moderate RoB, and four had a low RoB. Both materials demonstrated moderate strength of recommendation at a level 2 evidence for all studies based on SORT analysis. PICN and ZLS show promising short-term clinical performance as full and partial coverage indirect restorations, but longer follow-up studies are required to confirm their long-term performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".