Effect of mode of polymerization of bonding agent on shear bond strength of autocured resin composite luting cements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There have been anecdotal reports of low bond strength with autocured resin composite materials, particularly when light-cured bonding agents that combine primer and adhesive in a 1-bottle preparation are used. The objective of this study was to determine if the mode of polymerization of the bonding agent influences the strength of the attachment of autocured resin composite luting cements to dentin. METHODS: The shear bond strength of 2 resin luting cements, Calibra and RelyX ARC, polymerized by autocuring, in combination with 4 different bonding agents, Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus, Prime & Bond NT, IntegraBond and Single Bond, polymerized to bovine dentin by light-curing, autocuring or dual-curing, was determined. The pH of each bonding agent and its components was measured. Two-way analysis of variance was used to test the effect of cement and adhesive on shear bond strength. For each bonding agent, the adhesive variable combined the factors product brand and mode of polymerization. With significant interaction among the above variables, the least square means of the 16 combinations of resin cement and adhesive were compared. RESULTS: There was no consistent relationship between shear bond strength and mode of polymerization of the bonding agent. Significant differences in bond strength were specific to the proprietary brand of bonding agent. The pH of the bonding agent depends on the manufacturer's formulation, and low pH may contribute to low bond strength. CONCLUSIONS: The low in vitro bond strength occurring with some combinations of bonding agent and resin cement could be clinically significant.
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".