Influencia del tratamiento superficial en la resistencia de unión de una cerámica prensada a un cemento con base de resina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este estudio evaluo la influencia de diferentes metodos de tratamiento superficial de la ceramica Cergogold® (Degussa, Richmond, BC, Canada) en la resistencia a la traccion a un cemento con base de resina. Cuarenta discos de ceramica prensada fueron confeccionados e incluidos en resina acrilica autopolimerizable. Cuatro diferentes grupos (n=10) fueron clasificados de acuerdo con el tratamiento: Grupo I: control (silano/sin acondicionamiento), Grupo II: microabrasion con oxido de aluminio (50 m), Grupo III: acido fluorhidrico al 10% y Grupo IV: combinacion de acido fluorhidrico y microabrasion. Los resultados presentaron diferencias significativas entre los grupos: Grupo I (control) - x=3,89 MPa; Grupo II -x=7,8 MPa; Grupo III - x=5,6 MPa y Grupo IV - x=7,67 MPa, para lo cual se utilizo la prueba de ANOVA/Tukey (p<0,05). El grupo control presento la media menor, seguido del grupo tratado con acido fluorhidrico y, con mayor resistencia de union, los grupos microabrasion y combinacion de ambos. Se concluye que todos los tratamientos superficiales efectuados sobre la ceramica Cergogold® incrementaron la resistencia de union a la traccion a un cemento con base de resina, lo que puede tener implicaciones clinicas de beneficio.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".