Surface Detail Reproduction and Effect of Disinfectant and Long‐Term Storage on the Dimensional Stability of a Novel Vinyl Polyether Silicone Impression Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of a vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) in comparison to a vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) material as a function of prolonged storage for up to 2 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Heavy-body VPES (EXA'lence(TM) Fast Set) and VPS (Imprint(TM) 3 Quick Step) were compared. Forty impression ingots of each material were made using a stainless steel die as described by ANSI/ADA specification No. 19. Twenty impressions of each material were disinfected by immersion in a 2.5% buffered glutaraldehyde solution. Surface quality was assessed and scored immediately after making the ingots. Dimensional stability measurements were made immediately and repeated on the same ingots after 7 and 14 days storage in ambient laboratory conditions. Data were analyzed using the D'Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test followed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni tests. Values of p < 0.01 were deemed to be significant. RESULTS: Disinfected VPES and VPS specimens had significantly reduced dimensional changes at 7 and 14 days when compared with the nondisinfected ones (p < 0.0001). The dimensional stability of both materials was within ANSI/ADA specification No. 19's acceptable limit throughout the 2-week test period, regardless of whether they were disinfected. Out of the initial 80 ingots, 8 VPES and 1 VPS ingot scored a 2 on the surface detail test, while the remaining 71 ingots scored 1. CONCLUSIONS: Heavy-body fast-set VPES experienced minimal contraction in vitro after prolonged storage, though surface detail scores were not as consistent as those of the VPS tested. The least contraction occurred when the material was examined immediately after ingot production.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".