The partial Toronto prosthesis, a method for aesthetic failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All-on-4 concept, a technique strategically placing four implants in completely edentulous jaws to support a fixed prosthesis. Screw-retained prosthesis have advantages but screw holes could be buccal surfaces on prosthesis. This situation is aesthetic complication. A 55-year-old female patient was presented to clinic with complaints about the aesthetic appearance of her prosthesis which was delivered one year ago. On intraoral examination, it was observed that the patient rehabilitated with a fixed prosthesis which made an all-on-4 concept, had a screw holes are prepared buccal surfaces of the prosthesis and closed with the flowable composite. The patient's economic condition did not allow the rehabilitation with new prosthesis. Tallarico et al., restored the buccal screw holes with pink composite material in a hybrid prosthesis. The screw holes were initially closed using composite material (Rubydent) with had an opacity but the patient wasn't satisfied. Montero et al., used the Toronto prosthesis design to provide function and aesthetics in a hybrid prosthesis. The patient's prosthesis was removed and the porcelains of the teeth with screw holes on the buccal surfaces were etched in the laboratory, these areas were digitally scanned and a Toronto prosthesis design was made for two teeth. During the rehearsal session, the patient was informed the final appearance of the restoration, the design was completed after approval was obtained and the patient left the clinic aesthetically satisfied. Prostheses may have aesthetic complications that we cannot foresee which occur during the interim session but there is an alternative solution to the problem
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".