Bond strengths of nine current dentine adhesive systems to primary and permanent teeth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of nine dentine bonding systems (DBS) of different classes to human primary and permanent dentine. Flat dentine occlusal surfaces were produced on human molars (100 primary, 100 permanent) by wet grinding on a 800-grit SiC paper. Nine DBS were applied following the manufacturers' instructions: One total etch multi-step system: Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus (3M/ESPE); Four total etch one-bottle system: Prime &Bond 2.1 (Dentsply), One Step (Bisco), Scotchbond 1 (3M/ESPE), and OptibondSolo Plus (Kerr); Three two-step self-etching primer systems: Clearfil Liner Bond 2 (Kuraray), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), and Prime &Bond NT with NRC (Dentsply); An 'all-in-one' self-etching system: Prompt L-Pop (3M/ESPE). Composite (Z100; 3M/ESPE) cylinders (2 mm diameter, 3 mm high) were polymerized on the treated dentine surfaces and the specimens were stored at 37 degrees C for 24 h prior to testing. Twenty experimental groups were produced and tested. Statistical analysis revealed both a substrate and a bonding system effect. Two adhesive systems (One Step, Prime &Bond NT) had significantly higher bond strengths on permanent than on primary dentine. There was an effect of dentine bonding system on the mode of fracture. Although eight of the 10 DBS tested exhibited higher median SBS values on permanent dentine than on primary dentine, the dependent pairwise comparison identified a significant difference only for two groups. The use of simplified bonding systems does not necessarily result in improved bond strength to primary or to permanent dentine.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it