MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186307113

Efficacy of halogen photopolymerization units in private dental offices in Toronto.

2005· article· en· W2186307113 on OpenAlexaffabout
Omar El‐Mowafy, Wafa El‐Badrawy, Donald W. Lewis, Babak Shokati, Osama Soliman, Jaffer Kermalli, Fatma Rajwani, Rema Zawi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnoop hardness testPhotopolymerHardnessMaterials scienceComposite materialPolymerizationLight intensityResin compositeIntensity (physics)Indentation hardnessComposite numberMicrostructureOpticsPolymer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Light units used for polymerization of resin composites are subject to deterioration with age, and frequent maintenance is required to maintain optimal efficacy. This study examined the efficacy of quartz-tungsten-halogen light units in private dental offices in Toronto for polymerization of resin composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred dental offices met all selection criteria and agreed to participate in the study. The light intensity was determined for a total of 214 light units. Disk-shaped specimens, 2.5 mm thick, were made from 2 resin composites (Charisma, Heraeus Kulzer; Point 4, Kerr Corp) and were subjected to photopolymerization: Charisma for 20 seconds (99 units) and Point 4 for 20 and 40 seconds (all 214 units). Knoop hardness values for the upper and lower surfaces of each specimen were determined, and relative hardness values (hardness of lower surface/hardness of upper surface x 100) were calculated. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, 1-way analysis of variance, and simple and multiple linear regression (a = 0.05). RESULTS: The light intensity of the individual units varied widely, from 120 to 1,000 mW/cm2. Surface hardness and relative hardness were significantly (p < 0.05) and positively associated with light intensity, and wide ranges in surface hardness and relative hardness values were observed. Mean relative hardness ranged from 34.8% to 57.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Light polymerization units in private dental offices displayed a wide range in light intensity, and many had below-recommended levels. Of the resin composite specimens polymerized for 40 seconds with each of the 214 light units, only 10% reached the desired relative hardness of at least 80%. A positive linear relationship was found between light intensity and relative hardness. Increased exposure time resulted in a significant increase in relative hardness. Also, relative hardness was found to be dependent on the brand of composite material used. Dentists should regularly monitor the condition of light units and replace deteriorating parts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207