Influence of filling technique and curing mode on the bond strengths of composite cores to pulpal floor dentin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the influence of filling technique and curing mode on the microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) of composite cores to pulpal floor dentin. Access cavities of human molars with pulpal floor dentin were restored with a two-step self-etch adhesive system, Clearfil Liner Bond 2V and a composite core, Clearfil DC Core Automix, using different filling techniques and curing strategies. A flowable resin composite, Clearfil Flow FX was placed on the cured adhesive resin prior to restoration with a composite core. Packing the composite in the access cavity was performed in bulk with or without light curing or using an incremental technique with light curing. Microtensile bond strengths to pulpal floor dentin were measured after 24 hours storage in water. Light curing and incremental technique had positive effects on the MTBSs. Lining with a flowable resin composite did not significantly improve the MTBSs, however, influenced the failure mode after debonding. Non-lining and bulk filling with chemical curing strategy provided the lowest MTBS.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".