Effect of stepped vs. continuous light curing exposure on bond strengths to dentin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the 10-min and 24-hr shear bond strengths of three dentin bonding systems, polymerized with either a standard (Optilux 401) light for 60 s, or a stepped curing light (Elipar Highlight) that delivered a low light intensity for 10 s followed by high intensity for 50 s. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three bonding systems were used to bond two resin-based composites (RBC) to dentin at 34 degrees +/- 2C using the two curing lights. Single Bond (SB) and Prime & Bond 2.1 (P&B) were used with Z100 RBC, and EBS bonding system was used with Pertac II RBC. Ten specimens from each combination were debonded at 37 degrees +/- 1C 10 min after starting to light cure the bonding system. Ten other specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees +/- 1C for 24 hrs before debonding at 37 degrees +/- 1C (total 120 teeth). RESULTS: The 10-min mean shear bond strengths were: Standard Cure; EBS 11.9 +/- 2.9 MPa, SB 14.6 +/- 2.2 MPa, P&B 14.7 +/- 4.2 MPa: Stepped Curing; EBS 7.4 +/- 2.1 MPa, SB 13.0 +/- 3.6 MPa, P&B 15.6 +/- 4.8 MPa. The 24-hr mean shear bond strengths were: Standard Cure; EBS 14.8 +/- 5.1 MPa, SB 25.1 +/- 3.3 MPa, P&B 25.2 +/- 8.8 MPa: Stepped Curing; EBS 15.1 +/- 4.6 MPa, SB 21.9 +/- 5.9 MPa, P&B 17.3 +/- 9.2 MPa. Three way ANOVA showed significant main effects for light, bonding system and time and no 2- or 3-way interaction effects at P = 0.01. The Least-Squares Means test with Sidak's adjustment for Multiple Comparisons showed that the bond strengths obtained using the standard light were significantly greater than the bond strengths obtained using the stepped curing light (P < 0.01). The 24-hr bond strengths were significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the 10-min bond strengths. The bond strengths obtained with EBS were significantly less than SB and P&B (P < 0.01), but there were no significant differences between SB and PB (P = 0.9752).
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".