Is Fluoride Concentration in Dentin and Enamel a Good Indicator of Dental Fluorosis?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite some studies correlating dental fluorosis (DF) and fluoride (F) concentration in dental enamel, no information is available about DF and dentin F concentration. Our objective was to determine the correlation between teeth F concentration and DF severity in unerupted human 3rd molars, and the correlation between dentin and enamel F concentrations in the same tooth. Ninety-nine 3rd molars were studied-53 from Fortaleza, Brazil (F water, 0.7 ppm), 22 from Toronto (1.0 ppm), and 24 from Montreal (0.2 ppm). DF severity was evaluated according to the Thylstrup-Fejerskov Index, while F concentration was analyzed by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. DF severity varied between TF0 and TF4, while F concentration ranged between 39 and 550 ppm in enamel and 101 and 860 ppm in dentin. Our results showed correlation between dentin F concentration and DF (r(S) = 0.316, p = 0.001), but no correlation between enamel F concentration and DF (r(S) = 0.154, p = 0.133). No correlation was observed between dentin and enamel F concentrations in the same tooth (r(S) = 0.064, p = 0.536).
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it