Dimensional stability and dehydration of a thermoplastic polycarbonate‐based and two PMMA‐based denture resins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the dimensional stability and dehydration of a thermoplastic polycarbonate denture base resin with two conventional polymethyl methacrylate denture base resins. Maxillary complete dentures were fabricated from the three denture materials and the accuracy of fit along the posterior palatal border of the cast used in processing was measured. Measurements were conducted at five palatal locations immediately after processing and at 7 and 30 days during immersion in water (23 degrees C) and at 7 and 30 days during dehydration (23 degrees C, 65-75% relative humidity). Percentage mass loss during dehydration was determined with an electronic balance. The thermoplastic material was separately compared with each of the conventional resins using a modified Welch two-sample t-test, with a Bonferroni correction for P values. For mean palatal dimensional change, the thermoplastic resin was generally not statistically different from the conventional resins after processing and during immersion (P > or = 0.06), but was generally less than the conventional resins during dehydration (P < or = 0.02). For mean percentage mass loss, the thermoplastic resin consistently showed much smaller, statistically significant values compared with the conventional resins (P < 0.001). It was concluded that the thermoplastic resin should show dimensional changes in service comparable with the conventional resins, but less dimensional change caused by dehydration.
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".