Discrimination of Tooth Layers and Dental Restorative Materials Using Cutting Sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental restoration begins with removing carries and affected tissues with air-turbine rotary cutting handpieces, and later restoring the lost tissues with appropriate restorative materials to retain the functionality. Most restoration materials eventually fail as they age and need to be replaced. One of the difficulties in replacing failing restorations is discerning the boundary of restorative materials, which causes inadvertent removal of healthy tooth layers. Developing an objective and sensor-based method is a promising approach to monitor dental restorative operations and to prevent excessive tooth losses. This paper has analyzed cutting sounds of an air-turbine handpiece to discriminate between tooth layers and two commonly used restorative materials, amalgam and composite. Support vector machines were employed for classification, and the averaged short-time Fourier transform coefficients were selected as the features. The classifier performance was evaluated from different aspects such as the number of features, feature scaling methods, classification schemes, and utilized kernels. The total classification accuracies were 89% and 92% for cases included composite and amalgam materials, respectively. The obtained results indicated the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".