MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130337514 · doi:10.2341/09-075-l

Effect of Configuration Factor on Shear Bond Strengths of Self-etch Adhesive Systems to Ground Enamel and Dentin

2010· article· en· W2130337514 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperative Dentistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie University
KeywordsEnamel paintDentinAdhesiveMaterials scienceComposite materialShear (geology)DentistryDental enamelDental bondingBond strengthLayer (electronics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-etch bonding systems are easy to use and popular in dental practice. The current study examined the in vitro shear bond strengths to dentin and ground enamel of four self-etch bonding systems and a two-step etch-and-rinse bonding system. Two hundred extracted non-carious human molars were used. Approximately 0.5 mm of enamel was removed from the buccal surface of 100 teeth and the bond strengths of this enamel surface were determined. The buccal surface of the remaining 100 teeth was ground away to create a standardized smear layer on dentin. Five adhesive systems were used: Adper Single Bond Plus (ASB): two-step etch-and-rinse); Adper Scotchbond SE (AS), Clearfil SE Bond (CSE-both two-step self-etch); XENO V (X) and Adper Easy Bond (AE): both one-step self-etch). Filtek Z250 composite was bonded to the tooth using each adhesive system in a low configuration (C) factor (0.2) and a high C-factor (4.4) mold (10 teeth in each group). The specimens were thermal cycled 2,000x, then subjected to a shear bond strength test. The data were compared with analysis of variance using the Fisher's PLSD multiple comparison tests. A three-factor ANOVA showed that, overall, the shear bond strength was significantly higher in the low C-factor group 4.33 MPa (p < 0.0001). There was also a significant difference in the shear bond strengths among the bonding systems (p < 0.0001). The higher C-factor molds had the same adverse effect on all bonding systems and on both enamel and dentin, but the bonding systems acted differently on enamel and dentin (three-factor ANOVA p < 0.0001). The two-step etch-and-rinse system (ASB) consistently delivered the highest bond strengths (34.6-41.5 MPa). Fisher's PLSD comparisons showed that, in the high C-factor mold, there was no significant difference between the shear bond strengths of SB, EB and CSE to dentin, and SB, X and SE to enamel (p > 0.05). The one-step self-etch AE system delivered the lowest shear bond strengths (23.9 MPa) to enamel (p < 0.05). The two-step self-etch system AS delivered the lowest shear bond strengths (23.9 MPa) to dentin (p < 0.05).

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.295 · 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