Do onlays and crowns offer similar outcomes to posterior teeth with <scp>mesial‐occlusal‐distal</scp> preparations? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".