MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011525569 · doi:10.1134/s1054660x09170058

Factors affecting on bond strength of glass fiber post cemented with different resin cements to root canal

2009· article· en· W2011525569 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

VenueLaser Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot canalDentistryDentinMaterials scienceBond strengthDistilled waterUniversal testing machineMedicineComposite materialChemistryUltimate tensile strengthAdhesiveChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Luting materials provides the retention of endodontic post. However, the failures of endodontic posts predominantly occurred are the losses of retention. Thus, the alternating use to remove the smear layer, open the dentine tubules, and/or etch the inter-tubular dentine can be provided by EDTA. This study was performed to evaluate effect of EDTA on bond strength of glass fiber post cemented with different resin cements to root canal. Fifty bovine incisors were selected and the crowns were removed to obtain a remaining 14-mm-height root. The roots were randomly distributed into five groups: GI: RelyX™ ARC/LED; GII: RelyX™ U100/LED; GIII EDTA/RelyX™ U100/LED; GIV: Multilink™; and GV: EDTA/Multlink™. After endodontic treatment, the post space was prepared with the drills designated for the quartz-coated-carbon-fiber post Aestheti-Post®. Before application of resin cements, root canals were irrigated with 17% EDTA (GIII and GV) during 1 min, rinsed with distilled water and dried using paper points. The light-cured materials were light-activated with UltraLume LED 5 (Ultradent, South Jordan, Utah) with power density of 1315 mW/cm 2 . Specimens were perpendicularly sectioned into approximately 1 mm thick sections and the stubs were performed on Universal Testing Machine. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc tests showed significant statistical different between RelyX™ ARC (GI) and RelyX™ U100 independent of the pre-treatment (GII to GIII) ( P < 0.05). The Multlink™ showed between RelyX™ ARC and RelyX™ U100 (GI to GIII; GII to GV) ( P < 0.05). The ANOVA showed significant statistical similar ( P > 0.05) to all resin cements between the Cervical to Apical regions (GI to GV). The use of 17% EDTA showed no difference significant between the resin cements evaluated (GII to GIII; GIV to GV). Within the limitations of the current study, it can be concluded that the use of EDTA did not provide efficiency on bond strength. The RelyX™ ARC showed higher bond strength values than RelyX™ U100.

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)0.000
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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.246 · 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