Evaluation of dentin bonding performance and acid-base resistance of the interface of two-step self-etching adhesive systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate dentin bond strengths and to observe the adhesive-dentin interface after acid-base challenge using fluoride-free and fluoride-releasing self-etching adhesive systems; Clearfil SE Bond (SE), FL-Bond (FL) and FL-Bond II(FL II). Fifteen dentin surfaces from human molars were ground and bonded with one of three adhesive systems. The microtensile bond strength (muTBS) test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The interface of the bonded specimens after acid-base challenge were also examined by a SEM. The muTBS of SE were significantly higher than those of FL and FL II (p<0.05), however, there were no significant differences between FL and FL II (p>0.05). An acid-base resistant zone (ABRZ) was observed in all the groups, however, formation of the ABRZ was material dependent. Fluoride-release from the adhesive is a key factor to create thick ABRZ.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".