Fracture strength of 3-units fixed partial dentures fabricated with metal-ceramic, graphene doped PMMA and PMMA before and after ageing: An in-vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the fracture strength and linear elongation at break of three-units fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated with traditional and new materials for fixed prosthodontics before and after ageing. METHODS: Sixty models of three-units FPDs were fabricated and cemented onto a Co-Cr model simulating the replacement of a maxillary second premolar. The samples were randomly divided into 3 groups: metal-ceramic (MCR), graphene-doped polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA-GR) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). Half of the samples were directly subjected to fracture test, while the remaining half underwent an ageing process and then a fracture loading test using an electrodynamic testing machine. Fracture load and elongation at break values were taken and statistically analysed. RESULTS: Significant differences were detected between the different materials (p<0.05). All groups showed a reduction of the fracture load and elongation at break values after ageing, but not statistically significant, except for PMMA group (p = 2.012e-19) (p = 3.8e-11). CONCLUSIONS: MCR and PMMA-GR three-units FPDs showed higher fracture strength and lower elongation at break compared to PMMA. MCR and PMMA-GR had higher resistance to ageing processes compared to PMMA. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: PMMA-GR could be considered a material for long-term provisional restorations as its mechanical behaviour and ageing resistance are more like MCR than PMMA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".