Study of the interocclusal distortion in impressions taken with different types of closed-mouth trays and two types of impression materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare different types of impression trays for the closed-mouth impression technique, using two different types of impression material. For this study, five different types of impression trays were used with two different types of impression materials, one of addition silicone and the other of polyether. We designed a model used for taking the impressions and for measuring interocclusal distortion. The results obtained show that the impression trays COE (GC (R) GC America INC. Alsip) and Premier (Premier (R), Premier Dental Products Co. Canada) show a lesser degree of interocclusal distortion when taking closed-mouth impressions. In terms of impression materials, the polyether was the one that produced the best results. From a clinical point of view, our study shows that the use of these types of trays is absolutely recommendable when used according to the clinical indications for which they have been designed; that said, we must not fail to consider that selecting the proper type of tray is also important.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".