Clinical performance of “free-hand” direct composite crowns used for the restoration of severely destroyed mandibular molars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There are several restorative approaches for the restoration of severely destroyed teeth, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of direct composite resin crowns used for restoration of severely destroyed mandibular molars in young patients.Material and methods: In total 45 severely destroyed vital and non-vital mandibular molars were restored in 44 patients (24-40 years old).Mandibular molars were restored in a "free-hand" direct restoration approach using a biomimetic concept (4-layer technic).After the restoration, on the 3 rd -and 6 th -month, and the 1 st -, 2 nd -, and 3 rd -year follow-ups, the clinical performance of the restoration was evaluated.During the follow-ups, the integrity of restoration, contact point stability, dental plaque accumulation, and gingival bleeding indices were evaluated, and restoration survival was accessed.Results: Restorations showed up to 100% survival after 3 years of exploitation.Significantly, lower gingival bleeding and plague accumulation index were registered during the follow-up visits after the restoration, which is a sign of good integration of the restoration into the bite.Only one case of partial fracture of the restoration occurred, which was repaired with composite resin.No differences between the clinical performance in non-vital and vital mandibular molars were observed.Conclusions: "Free-hand" direct composite crowns used for the restoration of severely destroyed mandibular molars showed promising results for the restoration of severely destroyed mandibular molars in a 3-year observation period.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".