MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089066835 · doi:10.4012/dmj.26.135

Enamel Bonding of Self-etch and Phosphoric Acid-etch Orthodontic Adhesive Systems

2007· article· en· W2089066835 on OpenAlex
Shuzo Kitayama, Toru Nikaido, Masaomi Ikeda, 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersTokyo Medical and Dental University
KeywordsEnamel paintMaterials scienceAdhesivePhosphoric acidBone decalcificationComposite materialBracketEtching (microfabrication)Bond strengthShear strength (soil)CrossheadDental bondingDentistryLayer (electronics)MetallurgyFlexural strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to examine the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to ground enamel with two self-etching adhesives (Beauty Ortho Bond and Transbond XT) and two phosphoric acid-etching adhesives (Kurasper F and Orthomite Superbond). After the bonded specimens were stored in water at 37 degreees C for 24 hours, they were subjected to thermal cycling (TC) at 0 and 5000 cycles. Then, shear bond test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Results indicated that the self-etching adhesives did not significantly differ in bond strength before and after TC (p>0.05), while the phosphoric acid-etching adhesives showed a significant reduction after TC (p<0.05). The predominant modes of bracket failure for the self-etching adhesives were at the enamel-resin interface, leaving less than 50% of the adhesive on the enamel surface. It was concluded that the self-etching adhesives exhibited stable bond strength to ground enamel without causing decalcification nor damage to the enamel surface.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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