MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050202307 · doi:10.4012/dmj.2011-001

Effect of smear layer characteristics on dentin bonding durability of HEMA-free and HEMA-containing one-step self-etch adhesives

2011· article· en· W2050202307 on OpenAlex
Yuko Shinoda, Masatoshi Nakajima, Keiichi Hosaka, Masayuki Otsuki, Richard M. FOXTON, Junji Tagami

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

VenueDental Materials Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdhesiveMaterials scienceDentinDurabilitySmear layerComposite materialLayer (electronics)Bond strengthComposite numberDental bondingDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of smear layer characteristics on the dentin bonding durability of HEMA-free and HEMA-containing one-step self-etch adhesives. Xeno V (XV; HEMA-free), G BOND PLUS (GB; HEMA-free) and Clearfil S(3 )Bond (S(3); HEMA-containing), were applied to dentin surfaces prepared with either #180- or #600-grit SiC paper according to manufacturers' instructions. Bond strengths to dentin were determined using µTBS test after 24-hour, 6-month, and 1-year water storage. In addition, nanoleakage evaluation was performed using an SEM. The smear layer characteristics affected water-tree nanoleakage formation in the adhesive layers of XV and GB, which contributed to a reduction in µTBS after 6-month water storage, while the characteristics did not affect the µTBS of S(3). However, regardless of the smear layer characteristics, 1-year water storage significantly reduced the µTBS of all the adhesives and was associated with an increase in failures at the adhesive-composite interface.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.270
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