Influence of the light-curing unit, storage time and shade of a dental composite resin on the fluorescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the influence of three light-curing units, storage times and colors of the dental composite resin on the fluorescence. The specimens (diameter 10.0 ± 0.1 mm, thickness 1.0 ± 0.1 mm) were made using a stainless steel mold. The mold was filled with the microhybrid composite resin and a polyethylene film covered each side of the mold. After this, a glass slide was placed on the top of the mold. To standardize the top surface of the specimens a circular weight (1 kg) with an orifice to pass the light tip of the LCU was placed on the top surface and photo-activated during 40 s. Five specimens were made for each group. The groups were divided into 9 groups following the LCUs (one QTH and two LEDs), storage times (immediately after curing, 24 hours, 7 and 30 days) and colors (shades: A 2 E, A 2 D, and TC) of the composite resin. After photo-activation, the specimens were storage in artificial saliva during the storage times proposed to each group at 37°C and 100% humidity. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s posthoc tests showed no significant difference between storage times (immediately, 24 hours and 30 days) ( P > 0.05). The means of fluorescence had difference significant to color and light-curing unit used to all period of storage ( P < 0.05). The colors had difference significant between them (shades: A 2 D < A 2 E < TC) ( P < 0.05). The Ultraled (LED) and Ultralux (QTH) when used the TC shade showed higher than Radii (LED), however to A 2 E shade and A 2 D shade any difference were found ( P > 0.05).
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) | 0.000 | 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".