MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4378348436 · doi:10.1111/cid.13229

How can excess residual cement be reduced in implant‐supported restorations?: An in vitro study

2023· article· en· W4378348436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aykut Gönder, Serdar Polat, Mehmet Ali Kılıçarslan, Mert Ocak, Evşen Tamam

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsCementation (geology)CementMaterials scienceDentistryAbutmentImplantComposite materialMedicineSurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different cements and cementation techniques used in implant-supported restorations and the application of various vent modifications and extraoral replica techniques on the amount of overflowing cement in cemented systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, three different abutment designs were used as fully closed, occlusal vented, and occlusal + proximal vented. An extraoral replica was produced by milling the CAD/CAM ceramic block. The number of groups with and without replicas was determined as six (n = 10). For the cementation procedures, three different cements were tested: dual-cure resin, eugenol-free zinc oxide, and polycarboxylate cements. Cobalt-chromium superstructures to be cemented to the implant analog-abutment complex were produced by direct metal laser sintering method. Twenty-four hours after the cementation process, residual cement were measered with Micro-CT. In comparisons between groups, ANOVA test was used for normally distributed variables and Kruskall-Wallis H test was used for non-normally distributed variables at a significance level of p < 0.05. RESULTS: The difference in residual cement volumes between the groups in terms of both cementation techniques (whether or not to use an extraoral replica and different vent desings) and cement types was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). There was significantly less residual cement in all groups that used extraoral replicas than those that did not. As for the cement types, the most residual cement occurred in the resin cement. CONCLUSION: The use of extraoral replicas and vent designs on the abutment significantly reduces the amount of residual cement. Regardless of the cementation technique, the type of cement used affects the amount of excess cement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To reduce residual cement, both the type of cement and the cementation technique used must be considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→