MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387774799 · doi:10.3390/app132011461

Marginal Discrepancy and Internal Fit of Bi-Layered and Monolithic Zirconia Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study

2023· article· en· W4387774799 on OpenAlexaff
Majed M. Alsarani, Amin S. Rizkalla, Joseph L. Fava, Thomas W. Coyle, Omar El‐Mowafy

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsCubic zirconiaMaterials scienceAbutmentScanning electron microscopeComposite materialDentistryCeramicMedicineStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This in vitro study evaluated the influence of restoration design (bi-layered vs. monolithic) and manufacturing technique on the marginal discrepancy and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Mandibular second premolars and second molars were prepared as abutments in a 3-unit zirconia bridge to develop four groups (n = 10 FDPs): MZ: Monolithic zirconia FDPs, ZL: zirconia framework veneered by the hand-layering technique, ZP: zirconia framework veneered by the heat-pressed technique, and CAD-on: zirconia framework veneered by CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate glass–ceramic. All the zirconia FDPs were cemented to their corresponding die replicas using dual-cure resin cement and were subjected to compressive cyclic loading at a load range for half a million cycles using a universal testing machine. FDPs were sectioned mesiodistally to measure the marginal gap and internal fit using scanning electron microscopy. The measurements were taken at pre-assigned points of each abutment. Data were statistically analyzed via a Kruskal–Wallis test (α = 0.05). No significant differences were found between the monolithic and bi-layered zirconia groups in terms of the marginal discrepancy. However, there was a significant difference in the marginal gap between the zirconia groups. The marginal gap between monolithic and bi-layered zirconia FDPs was within the clinically acceptable range (<100 μm). Comparable mean values of the marginal gaps of 3-unit monolithic and veneered zirconia FDPs were found. Therefore, the FDP design and veneering methods did not affect the marginal discrepancy. However, the mean internal gap varied among the experimental groups. As the current in vitro investigation demonstrated equivalent mean values of marginal gaps of both 3-unit monolithic and bi-layered zirconia FPDs, the use of monolithic 3-unit zirconia FPDs would be a viable alternative fabrication technique.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207