Comparitive Evaluation of Inlay Retained and Surface Retained Resin Bonded Fixed Partial Dentures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the clinical success rate of inlay and surface retained RB-FPDs fabricated with fiber reinforced composite. Material and Methods: This study was performed in Prosthodontic department de`Montmorency college of dentistry. 172 RB-FPDs were completed with two preparation designs having 86 cases in each design (inlay retained and surface retained). Restorations were done on patients for single missing molar surrounded by sound, healthy and well aligned abutments. RB-FPDs were fabricated in zirconium silicate based indirect composite (ceramage) with incorporation of glass fibers (Everstick C&B). Follow up was done after every six months till 18 months. Complications (fracture, debonding, and dislodgment or abutment tooth caries) developed during follow up were recorded and analyzed through SPSS version 17. Results: Overall success rate of 76.9% was observed in both designs of RB-FPDs. P value of 0.190 showed insignificant statistical differences in success rate of two designs however there was a trend towards better performance of inlay retained RBFPDs. Fracture of the framework was most prevalent mode of failure followed by debonding of the restoration. Conclusion: The fiber reinforced RB-FPD is a viable treatment option for replacement of single missing posterior tooth. Keywords: Maryland Bridge, Resin bonded bridges, Resin bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs), Minimum preparation bridges
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".