MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microleakage of three sealants following conventional, bur, and air‐abrasion preparation of pits and fissures

2001· article· en· W2120520367 on OpenAlexaffabout
Šahza Hatibović‐Kofman, Sheila Butler, Hani Sadek

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Paediatric Dentistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Erosion and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSealantDentistryMedicineVarnishAbrasion (mechanical)Statistical analysisOrthodonticsComposite materialMaterials scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of a filled sealant with a drying agent (UltraSeal XT plus), a filled sealant (Prismashield) and an unfilled sealant (Delton), after conventional, bur, and air-abrasion tooth preparation techniques. SETTING: The study was completed in a clinical setting at the Simulated Practice Environment Clinic, School of Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. SAMPLE AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty extracted teeth were cleaned and divided randomly into three groups. Group 1 was prepared using acid etch only. Group 2 was prepared with a 1/4 round bur in a low-speed handpiece followed by acid etching. Group 3 was prepared with high speed (120PSI) microabrasion using 27 microm alpha-alumina particles in a Midwest Airtouch unit. The teeth in each group were randomly assigned to one of the three subgroups according to the sealant applied. Subgroup A was sealed with a filled sealant with drying agent, B with a filled sealant only, and C with an unfilled sealant. All teeth were stored in artificial saliva for 7 days at 37 degrees C. After this, the teeth were coated with nail varnish 1 mm from the sealant and immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 48 h at 37 degrees C. Each tooth was sectioned at four locations buccolingually and a total of 665 sections were ranked (0-3) for microleakage. Statistical analysis was completed using the Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: UltraSeal XT plus, the filled sealant with drying agent, showed significantly less microleakage than the other two sealants (P < 0.05). Delton, the unfilled sealant, showed significantly less microleakage than Prismashield, the filled sealant (P < 0.05). Air abrasion with acid etch showed significantly less microleakage than either bur with acid etch or acid etch alone. There was however, no significant difference between the bur and acid etch tooth preparations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: UltraSeal XT plus was the most effective sealant for preventing microleakage in this study. The most successful method of preparation was air abrasion with acid etch.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Paediatric DentistrySame topicDental Erosion and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207