The influence of resin chemistry on a dental composite's biodegradation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work reported that commercial dental composite resins containing a urethane-modified bisGMA (bisphenylglycidyl dimethacrylate)/TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate) (ubis) based monomer system showed a 10-fold reduction in the release of a bisGMA-derived product, bishydroxypropoxyphenyl propane (bisHPPP), as compared with that found for bisGMA/TEGDMA (bis) based composites after incubation with cholesterol esterase (CE). Unfortunately, these materials also differed substantially in filler type and content, making it impossible to directly relate any specific parameter to the differences in biodegradation levels. By controlling for filler content and type, the current study will seek to probe the biomolecular interactions between composite resin chemistry and esterase activity in order to help explain the observed differences in biodegradation levels between the ubis and bis resin systems. After 32 days of incubation, buffer and CE solutions were analyzed for degradation products using high-performance liquid chromatography, UV spectroscopy, and mass spectrometry. Both materials were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. In the CE groups, the ubis system showed a 2.6- to 86-fold reduction (dependent on the product) in the amount of isolated products relative to the bis system (p < 0.01). Scanning electron microscopy data also demonstrated the relative stability of the ubis system and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis showed a higher content of the ester bond at the surface of the bis samples. Fourier transform infrared data showed that both resins had similar conversions. Because both systems were identical except for their monomer systems, it was concluded that changes in biostability were associated with chemistry. Crosslinking, hydrophobicity, and solubility all relate to ubis's pro-stability.
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) | 0.001 | 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".