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 OpenAlexaff
Shuzo Kitayama, Toru Nikaido, Masaomi Ikeda, Richard M. FOXTON, Junji Tagami

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental Materials JournalSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207