Influence of abrasive particle size on surface properties of flowable composites
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to measure and compare both the surface roughness and gloss of flowable composites polished with standardized silicone carbide (SiC) papers. Four flowable and two conventional composites were used in this study. Polymerized specimens were subjected to a polishing procedure comprising 12 sequential steps from coarser to finer grits of SiC paper. At the initial polishing stage, flowable composites were more sensitive to the size of the polishing particles and thus yielded surfaces rougher than the conventional composites. Surface roughness became stable when polishing particles less than 13 microm size were used. However, although surface roughness was reduced, an esthetic gloss quality was not achieved on the resultant polished surface. On the influence of filler shape, composites with spherical fillers seemed to have the upper-hand advantage of attaining a high gloss by polishing. On the influence of polishing particle size, it was suggested that polishing should be completed with polishing particles less than 12 microm size so as to achieve clinically satisfactory surface roughness and gloss.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it