Effect of light-curing units on microleakage under dental composite resins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light-curing units (QTH and LED) on microleakage of Class II composite resin restorations with dentin cavosurface margins. Twenty extracted mandibular first premolars, free of caries and fractures were prepared two vertical “slot” cavities in the occluso-mesial and -destal surfaces (2 mm buccal-lingually, 2 mm proximal-axially and cervical limit in enamel) and divided into 4 equal groups ( n = 8): GI and GII: packable posterior composite light-activated with LED and QTH, respectively; GIII and GIV: micro-hybrid composite resin light-activated with LED and QTH, respectively. The composite resins were applied following the manufacturer’s instructions. After 24 h of water storage specimens were subjected to thermocycling for a total of 500 cycles at 5 and 55°C and the teeth were then sealed with impermeable material. Teeth were immersed in 0.5% Basic fuchsin during 24 h at room temperature, and zero to three levels of penetration score were attributed. The Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed significant statistically similar ( P > 0.05) from GI to GII and GIII to GIV, which the GII (2.750) had the highest mean scores and the GIII and GIV (0.875) had lowest mean scores. The use of different light-curing units has no influence on marginal integrity of Class II composite resin restorations and the proprieties of composite resins are important to reduce the microleakage.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".