Influence of composite inlay/onlay thickness on hardening of dual-cured resin cements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation evaluated the effect of resin composite inlay/onlay thickness on the hardness of a group of eight dual-cure resin-based cements. Fourteen disc specimens measuring 6 mm in diameter and 2.5 mm thick were prepared from each of eight dual-cure cements: Adherence, Choice, Duolink, Enforce, Lute-It, Nexus, Resinomer and Variolink. Two specimens from each material were directly light-cured while the remainder of the specimens were light-cured through resin composite spacers varying in thickness from 1 mm to 6 mm. Curing through the spacers always resulted in a decrease in the Knoop hardness number. For some cements, hardness values were reduced by 50% or more when the resin composite spacer thickness was 4 mm or greater even when measurements were made one week after dual-curing. Low hardness values indicate the presence of a weak chemical-curing mechanism that may compromise cement quality in areas of the cavity not readily accessible to the curing light.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".