Effects of curing protocols on fluid kinetics and hardness of resin cements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of polymerization protocols on water sorption/solubility, the diffusion coefficient (D), the flux (J), and the hardness (KH) of two resin cements were evaluated. The materials were manipulated and divided into three groups (n=6) according to the curing protocol: PA=photoactivation (40 s); DP=delayed photoactivation (10 min self-curing plus 40 s photoactivated); CA=chemical activation. After desiccation, the specimens were weighed, stored in water (37ºC), evaluated over 28-days, and hardness recorded. Chemical activation resulted in lower net water uptake, D, and J for RelyX ARC (RX). For Variolink II (VL), CA yielded equivalent D and lower J; however, photoactivation resulted in lower net water uptake. Hardness of VL was less affected by the water storage, irrespective of the polymerization protocol. Considering the water diffusion parameters, VL demonstrated immediate photoactivation dependence; for RX, a chemical activation. Different polymerization protocols affect the fluid kinetics and the hardness of the resin cements tested.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".