<i>In vitro</i> microleakage of a fissure sealant polymerized by either a quartz tungsten halogen curing light or a plasma arc curing light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of using plasma arc curing lights with their shorter curing times in the management of children are potentially great, provided there are no adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the microleakage of a resin-based sealant is influenced by polymerization with either a conventional quartz tungsten halogen or a plasma arc curing light. DESIGN: This study took the form of an in vitro randomized control trial. Seventy extracted human first and second permanent premolars and molars were randomly allocated into two groups. Their occlusal surfaces were sealed with a light-cured fissure sealant using either a quartz tungsten halogen curing light or a plasma arc curing light. The teeth were then sectioned, resulting in four surfaces per tooth, which were examined for microleakage under x 15 magnification with a light microscope. The principal unit of analysis was the tooth (worst section score) and not the section microleakage score. RESULTS: No statistical significant difference in microleakage scoring between the two groups was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in the degree of microleakage of fissure sealants polymerized by either light source.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".