Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Three‐Unit Interim Restorations Fabricated by the CAD‐CAM Technology With Two Different Milling Machines and the Direct Technique by Using Different Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is a gap of information regarding the effect of type of milling machine (based on axis number) on mechanical properties of three‐unit interim restorations. Thus, this study aimed to compare the fracture resistance (FR) of three‐unit interim restorations fabricated by the computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) technology with two different milling machines and the direct technique by using different materials. Materials and Methods: Seventy‐two three‐unit interim restorations were fabricated on mandibular second molar and second premolar metal dies in six groups ( n = 12) according to the fabrication technique and the material used: milling groups with 4‐axis (Arum) and 5‐axis (Amann Girrbach) milling machines, and direct fabrication groups by using Visalys, Unifast III, Tempron, and Acropars materials. The restorations underwent thermocycling and cyclic loading, and their FR was measured. Data were analyzed by one‐way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc HSD test ( α = 0.05). Results: Of the directly fabricated restorations, Visalys showed significantly higher FR than other materials ( p < 0.05) while Acropars showed the lowest FR. The difference in FR between Unifast III and Tempron was not significant ( p = 0.298). The FR of Amann Girrbach and Arum groups was not significantly different ( p = 0.563) but their FR was significantly higher than the FR of other groups ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: Interim restorations fabricated by CAD/CAM milling had higher FR than traditionally fabricated restorations by the direct technique. Number of axes of the milling machine had no significant effect on FR. Visalys (bis‐acrylic material) showed superior results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".