MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174670067 · doi:10.2341/14-244-l

Effect of High Irradiance on Depth of Cure of a Conventional and a Bulk Fill Resin-based Composite

2015· article· en· W2174670067 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 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsKnoop hardness testMaterials scienceIrradianceComposite materialCuring (chemistry)Light guideDiodeLight-emitting diodeOpticsIndentation hardnessLight sourceOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of using three commercial light curing units (LCUs) delivering a range of irradiance values, but delivering similar radiant exposures on the depth of cure of two different resin-based composites (RBCs). METHODS: A conventional hybrid RBC (Z100 shade A2, 3M ESPE) or a bulk fill RBC (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill shade IVA, Ivoclar Vivadent) was packed into a 10-mm deep semicircular metal mold with a 2-mm internal radius. The RBC was exposed to light from a plasma-arc-curing (PAC) light (Sapphire Plus, DenMat) for five seconds, a quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) light (Optilux 501, Kerr) for 40 seconds, or a light-emitting-diode (LED) light (S10, 3M ESPE) for 20 seconds and 40 seconds (control). The Knoop microhardness was then measured as soon as possible at the top surface and at three points every 0.5 mm down from the surface. For each RBC, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used to predict the Knoop hardness in a manner analogous to a standard regression model. This predicted value was used to determine at what depth the RBC reached 80% of the mean hardness achieved at the top surface with any light. RESULTS: The PAC light delivered an irradiance and radiant exposure of 7328 mW/cm(2) and 36.6 J/cm(2), respectively, to the RBCs; the QTH light delivered 936 mW/cm(2) and 37.4 J/cm(2) and in 20 seconds the LED light delivered 1825 mW/cm(2) and 36.5 J/cm(2). In 40 seconds, the control LED light delivered a radiant exposure of 73.0 J/cm(2). For Z100, using 80% of the maximum hardness at the top surface as the criteria for adequate curing, all light exposure conditions achieved the 2.0-mm depth of cure claimed by the manufacturer. The LED light used for 40 seconds achieved the greatest depth of cure (5.0 mm), and the PAC light used for five seconds, the least (2.5 mm). Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill achieved a 3.5-mm depth of cure when the broad-spectrum QTH light was used for 40 seconds delivering 37.4 J/cm(2). It required a 40-second exposure time with the narrow-spectrum LED, delivering approximately 73 J/cm(2) to reach a depth of cure of 4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: When delivering a similar radiant exposure of 37 J/cm(2), the QTH (40 seconds) and LED (20 seconds) units achieved a greater depth of cure than the PAC (five seconds) light. For both resins, the greatest depth of cure was achieved when the LED light was used for 40 seconds delivering 73 J/cm(2) (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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.297 · 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