In vitro comparison of peak polymerization temperatures of 5 provisional restoration resins.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The heat produced by provisional restoration materials may injure the dental pulp. This study measured and compared peak temperatures during polymerization of 5 materials used in the fabrication of provisional restorations. METHODS: The tested materials were 2 self-curing resins (Integrity and Protemp) and 3 dual-cure resins (Iso-Temp, TCB Dual Cure and Provipont DC). A mould the size of a maxillary molar tooth was fabricated to contain 0.5 cc of resin. The temperature rise of the different materials was recorded every 10 seconds over a 10-minute period. RESULTS: The rise in temperature of Integrity (peak temperature of 33.8 degrees C) and Protemp Garant (35.6 degrees C) was significantly higher than the rise in temperature of Iso-Temp (29.5 degrees C), TCB Dual Cure (28.4 degrees C) and Provipont DC (29.5 degrees C). CONCLUSION: Use of the dual-cure resins in provisional restorations may reduce the risk of pulp injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".