MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385294523 · doi:10.1111/jerd.13114

Do onlays and crowns offer similar outcomes to posterior teeth with <scp>mesial‐occlusal‐distal</scp> preparations? A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4385294523 on OpenAlexaff
P Michaud, Hillary Dort

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryMedicineCusp (singularity)Posterior teethCochrane LibraryOrthodonticsTooth FractureMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Teeth prepared for mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) restorations have a significant risk of cusp fracture. Crowns and onlays can provide cusp coverage to reinforce posterior teeth at risk. Onlays are often more conservative of tooth structure which may be an advantage for teeth with large MOD preparations. It remains uncertain how onlays and crowns compare for posterior teeth with MOD tooth structure loss. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the resistance to fracture, success rate, survival rate, and failure rate of teeth with MOD preparations restored with onlays or crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search queried Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature (OpenGrey) from database inception through April 29, 2023. RESULTS: After eliminating duplicates and irrelevant records, 32 manuscripts were assessed. Only three publications met the criteria for inclusion. Most exclusions were due to poor reporting of restorative design and the amount of tooth structure remaining, or due to combining various restorative designs. Due to the limited sample size and high heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was conducted. One study observed a better outcome for onlays and two observed no difference. All three studies reported the mode of failure for crowns as more catastrophic whereas teeth with onlays could be salvaged. CONCLUSIONS: Onlays may be an advantageous alternative to crowns for teeth with MOD preparations, but the level of evidence is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Current evidence is insufficient to determine whether onlays or crowns are providing a different outcome when used to restore posterior teeth with MOD tooth structure loss. However, the fracture of teeth with MOD tooth structure loss restored with onlays appears to be less catastrophic than when restored with crowns.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistrySame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207