Transmittance of a bioceramic dental restorative material based on calcium aluminate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the transmittance of a new ceramic filling material as a function of time, thickness, wavelength, and addition of pigments. In the hardened state the ceramic material is composed of hydrates, calcium aluminate, and glass fillers. The radiopacity of the investigated material is also measured. The results of the transmittance are compared to a commercial glass ionomer cement (Fuji II) and resin composite (Tetric Ceram). The transmittance increased with time from low values after 1 h to values close to the glass ionomer cements after 1 week. The resin composite had almost twice the transmittance as the calcium aluminate material and the glass ionomer cement. The amount of light passing through the material was dependent on both the sample thickness and the wavelength. Samples of 0.5-mm thickness transmitted almost twice as much as 1-mm-thick samples. Regarding the wavelength, blue light was scattered very effectively (low transmittance), whereas red light was not (high transmittance). Addition of pigments lowered the transmittance. The radiopacity was slightly higher than that of enamel.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".