The effect of CPP-ACP and Nd:YAG laser on the bond strength of softened dentin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of CPP-ACP treatment and Nd:YAG laser on microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of softened dentin. Sixty samples were obtained from thirty sound third molars. All samples were submitted to dentin softening procedure, by the immersion of the specimens in 30 mL of Sprite Zero for 30 min. Afterwards, the samples were randomly divided according to the CPP-ACP treatment: CG-Control group; MP-treated with CPP-ACP paste (MI Paste); MPP-treated with CPP-ACP+900 ppm NaF paste (MI Paste Plus). Each group was further divided according to bonding procedure: NL-No laser; L-Laser irradiation after adhesive application and before polymerization. The laser parameters used were 1.4 W, 10 Hz, 140 mJ/pulse, with an optic fiber of 320 µm, generating energy of 174 J/cm(2) per pulse. All samples were restored with Clearfil SE Bond/Filtek Z350 XT. After 24 h, the restored samples were cut into beams (± 1 mm(2) adhesive interface area) and subjected to a µTBS test. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA test and Holm-Sidak post-hoc method (α = 0.05). The treatment with CPP-ACP pastes did not significantly affect softened dentin µTBS (p = 0.070). Statistic revealed significant reduction on µTBS values for CG/L, leading to the rejection of the second null hypothesis (p < 0.001). Both CPP-ACP based pastes did not affect µTBS of softened dentin for the adhesive system utilized. The Nd:YAG laser irradiation after application of adhesive system did affect µTBS values of softened dentin samples untreated with CPP-ACP based pastes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".