Trace elements can influence the physical properties of tooth enamel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous studies, we showed that the size of apatite nanocrystals in tooth enamel can influence its physical properties. This important discovery raised a new question; which factors are regulating the size of these nanocrystals? Trace elements can affect crystallographic properties of synthetic apatite, therefore this study was designed to investigate how trace elements influence enamel's crystallographic properties and ultimately its physical properties. The concentration of trace elements in tooth enamel was determined for 38 extracted human teeth using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). The following trace elements were detected: Al, K, Mg, S, Na, Zn, Si, B, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se and Ti. Simple and stepwise multiple regression was used to identify the correlations between trace elements concentration in enamel and its crystallographic structure, hardness, resistance to crack propagation, shade lightness and carbonate content. The presence of some trace elements in enamel was correlated with the size (Pb, Ti, Mn) and lattice parameters (Se, Cr, Ni) of apatite nanocrystals. Some trace elements such as Ti was significantly correlated with tooth crystallographic structure and consequently with hardness and shade lightness. We conclude that the presence of trace elements in enamel could influence its physical properties.
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".