Effect of pulse vs. continuous micro-xenon irradiation on the shear bond strength of a light-cured orthodontic composite resin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of pulse vs. continuous irradiation on the shear bond strength of a conventional orthodontic composite resin cured with a micro-xenon light (Aurys, Degrè K, Schiltigheim, France). Ninety freshly extracted bovine permanent mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to one of six groups; each group consisting of 15 specimens. Three groups were exposed to continuous irradiation of micro-xenon light for 10, 5, and 2 s, respectively, and used as controls. The remaining three groups were exposed to pulse irradiation of the same light source for 10, 5, and 2 s, respectively. After 24 h, all samples were tested in a shear mode on an Instron Machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA, USA). Analysis was made by ANOVA with Scheffé's test for comparisons. The chi-square test was used to determine significant differences in the Adhesive Remnant Index scores. The mean shear bond strength of the brackets continuously cured for 10 s was not statistically different from that of the brackets pulse-activated for the same curing time. Also, no statistically significant differences were found between both groups cured for 5 s. The group pulse-activated for 5 s, however, had a significantly lower mean shear bond strength than the control group cured for 10 s. Finally, the group pulse-activated for 2 s showed significantly lower bond strength values than all the other groups tested. Compared with continuous light curing, the micro-xenon pulse activation provides similar shear bond strength values, except when used for only 2 s; but despite lower performance characteristics, the shear bond strength may be clinically acceptable.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".