Flexural strength of glass and polyethylene fiber combined with three different composites.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the retentive strength of orthodontic bands cemented with amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP)-containing and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty mandibular third molars were embedded in acrylic resin blocks with the buccal surface of crowns perpendicular to the base of the mold. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups containing 30 teeth each. Groups 1 and 3 were cemented using conventional GIC and groups 2 and 4 were cemented using ACP-containing orthodontic cement. Groups 1 and 2 without thermocycling, and groups 3 and 4 after thermocycling (5000 cycles, 5° to 55°C) were tested for retentive strength using a universal testing machine (crosshead speed of 1mm/minute). Two-way ANOVA was performed to compare the retentive strength of the groups. RESULTS: The highest retentive strength belonged to group 1, and it was significantly higher than that of group 2 (P<0.001) and group 3 (P=0.02). The mean strength for group 2 was significantly lower than that of group 1 (P<0.001) and group 4 (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although retentive strength decreased when ACP was added to GIC, the retentive strength of the samples cemented by ACP-containing GIC was remarkably high after thermocycling. It seems that in the oral cavity, ACP-containing GIC provides sufficient strength to endure forces applied on posterior teeth.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".