Clinical evaluation of zirconia crowns cemented with two different resin cements: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-adhesive resin cement has been used extensively with zirconia crowns. Several in vitro studies showed that adhesive resin cementation may increase zirconia crowns' retention and their fatigue resistance. OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance, survival and success rates and complications encountered with zirconia crowns cemented with two different self-adhesive resin cements. METHODS: A total of 112 patients who received 176 monolithic zirconia crowns were evaluated. Crowns were cemented with RelyX Unicem 2 (n = 74) and Panavia SA (n = 102) self-adhesive resin cements. Clinical assessments of the crowns and supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Intraoral photographs and periapical and bitewing radiographs were obtained for further assessment by two evaluators. Descriptive statistics, McNemar, t-test, log rank (Mantel-Cox) tests and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed (a = .05). RESULTS: The 5-year survival and success rates were 100% and 96.4%, respectively. The complications encountered were recurrent caries (2.2%) and the need for endodontic treatment (0.5%). No technical complications, such as fracture or loss of retention, were observed. The type of cement and patient-related factors did not influence the survival and success rates of the crowns. CONCLUSIONS: Survival rate of zirconia crowns cemented with two different self-adhesive resin cements was 100% after 5 years.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".