MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Confocal Examination of Subsurface Cracking in Ceramic Materials

2009· article· en· W1996506888 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCeramicScanning electron microscopeMicrostructureComposite materialCrackingEnamel paintConfocal laser scanning microscopyConfocalBiomedical engineeringOpticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The original ceramic surface finish and its microstructure may have an effect on crack propagation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between crack propagation and ceramic microstructure following cyclic fatigue loading, and to qualitatively evaluate and quantitatively measure the surface and subsurface crack depths of three types of ceramic restorations with different microstructures using a Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope (CLSM) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty (8 x 4 x 2 mm(3)) blocks of AllCeram (AC), experimental ceramic (EC, IPS e.max Press), and Sensation SL (SSL) were prepared, ten glazed and ten polished of each material. Sixty antagonist enamel specimens were made from the labial surfaces of permanent incisors. The ceramic abraders were attached to a wear machine, so that each enamel specimen presented at 45 degrees to the vertical movement of the abraders, and immersed in artificial saliva. Wear was induced for 80K cycles at 60 cycles/min with a load of 40 N and 2-mm horizontal deflection. The specimens were examined for cracks at baseline, 5K, 10K, 20K, 40K, and 80K cycles. RESULTS: Twenty- to 30-microm deep subsurface cracking appeared in SSL, with 8 to 10 microm in AC, and 7 microm close to the margin of the wear facets in glazed EC after 5K cycles. The EC showed no cracks with increasing wear cycles. Seventy-microm deep subsurface cracks were detected in SSL and 45 microm in AC after 80K cycles. Statistically, there was significant difference among the three materials (p < 0.05). Bonferroni multiple comparison of means test confirmed the ANOVA test and showed that there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in crack depth within the same ceramic material with different surface finishes. CONCLUSIONS: The ceramic materials with different microstructures showed different patterns of subsurface cracking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it