Scanning Electron Microscope Evaluation of Two Methods of Resharpening Periodontal Curets: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective root planing demands sharp cutting edges on dental curets. However, after several strokes, they become dull and must be resharpened frequently. The purpose of this study was to evaluate by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the quality of the cutting edge of periodontal curets resharpened by 2 different methods. METHODS: Forty new detachable Gracey curets were used in this study. After similar blunting, all instruments were resharpened either with 10 strokes using an Arkansas fine-grit sharpening stone (AR), or with 7 strokes using a high-grit and -density aluminum oxide stone (CH). The cutting edges of each instrument were examined using SEM at 1 mm and 2 mm from the tip before and after the resharpening procedure. Bevel measurement and the amount of functional and non-functional wire edges (WE) on the cutting edge were evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures, 2-way ANOVA, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: After blunting and resharpening, differences in bevel between groups were statistically non-significant. Generally, after resharpening, there were significantly more functional and non-functional WE in the AR group than in the CH group. There were significantly more instruments with a complete absence of WE in the CH group. CONCLUSIONS: The CH stone resulted in a smoother and better cutting edge than the AR stone. The procedure was easy to perform and required fewer strokes of the curet on the stone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".