Microtensile Bond Strength of Nonmetallic Dowels Bonded to Radicular Dentin with Self‐Etch Adhesives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The bonding potential of nonmetallic dowels to root dentin, particularly with new self-etch adhesives, has not been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to determine microtensile bond strength (microTBS) of nonmetallic dowels, including a novel glass fiber dowel, when bonded to radicular dentin with self-etch adhesives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Crowns of extracted anterior teeth were severed, and endodontic treatment was performed. Teeth were divided into six groups according to dowel/adhesive. Teeth received dowels as follows: group I: Light Post + Clearfil-SE Bond/Panavia-F (SE/PF), group II: Light Post + Xeno III/Panavia-F (XN/PF), group III: ParaPost Fiber White + SE/PF, group IV: ParaPost Fiber White + XN/PF, group V: everStick Post + SE/PF, and group VI: everStick Post + XN/PF. Teeth were sectioned to produce 1 mm specimens from both cervical and middle thirds with the dowel at the center. Specimens were tested in a special machine, and microTBS values were determined. RESULTS: Mean microTBS values and SDs in MPa for the cervical region were as follows: group I: 10.36 (1.88), group II: 8.51 (1.41), group III: 11.61 (1.06), group IV: 9.37 (1.61), group V: 14.22 (1.16), and group VI: 12.97 (1.69). Group V had the highest mean value-significantly higher than the means of groups I, II, III, and IV (p < 0.0001 to p < 0.02). For the middle region: group I, 9.72 (1.61); group II, 7.62 (1.42); group III, 10.28 (0.75); group IV, 8.48 (1.51); group V, 13.23 (1.06); group VI, 11.07 (1.49). Group V also had highest mean value-significantly higher than the means of groups I, II, III, and IV (p < 0.0001 to p < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: everStick glass fiber dowel, bonded with either adhesive, showed the highest microTBS. Microtensile bond strengths were not significantly different with cervical root dentin than with middle root dentin.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".