MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206544389 · doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x

Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3206544389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mario Dioguardi, Mario Alovisi, Giuseppe Troiano, Carlo Vito Alberto Caponio, Andrea Baldi, Giovanni Tommaso Rocca, Allegra Comba, Lorenzo Lo Muzio, Nicola Scotti

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oral Investigations · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Torino
KeywordsMeta-analysisDentistryMedicineOutcome (game theory)MEDLINEOrthodonticsPathologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases ("PubMed," "Scopus," "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial," and "Embase"). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.038
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.419
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.093 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Oral InvestigationsSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207