Effects of load and indicator type upon occlusal contact markings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinicians use occlusal indicators to identify tooth contacts. However, the reliability of these indicators has been questioned. At times occlusal contacts are not identified or false positive occlusal contacts are observed. PURPOSE OF STUDY: This study was designed to compare the number and size of occlusal indicator marks from both thick and thin occlusal indicator materials with different loads. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ivorine casts were articulated and mounted on an Hana Mate nonadjustable articulator. Loads of 100N, 150N, and 200N were applied with Accufim (25 microm thick, Parkell, Farmingdale, NY) and Articulating Paper (60 microm thick, G.E. Rudischauer Dental Articulating Paper, Brooklyn, NY) as the occlusal indicators. A fresh piece of indicator was used for each trial. Comparisons were made of the number and size of the contacts for both the thick and thin occlusal indicators at the different loads. RESULTS: Observation of the marks recorded with the thicker occlusal indicator demonstrated both a greater number marks and a larger size to the marks when compared to the thinner Accufilm, p < or = 0.02-0.0001. However, there was no significant increase in the number or size of the marks with an increased load for either material.
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 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 | 0.025 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".