Microleakage evaluation of class V restorations with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the marginal microleakage of conventional Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGIC). The tested materials were grouped as follows: GIC category - G1 (Vidrion R - SSWhite); G2 (Vitro Fill - DFL); G3 (Vitro Molar - DFL); G4 (Bioglass R - Biodinâmica); and G5 (Ketac Fill - 3M/ESPE); and RMGIC category - G6 (Vitremer - 3M/ESPE); G7 (Vitro Fill LC - DFL); and G8 (Resiglass - Biodinâmica). Therefore, 80 class V cavities (2.0X2.0 mm) were prepared in bovine incisors, either in the buccal face. The samples were randomly divided into 8 groups and restored using each material tested according to the manufacturer. The root apices were then sealed with acrylic resin. The teeth were stored for 24 h in 100% humidity at 37°C. After storage, the specimens were polished with extra-slim burs and silicon disc (Soft-lex - 3M/ESPE), then were isolated with cosmetic nail polish up to 1 mm around the restoration. Then, the samples were immersed in 50% AgNO3 solution for 12 h and in a developing solution for 30 min. They were rinsed and buccal-lingual sectioned. The evaluation of the microleakage followed scores from 0 to 3. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn method test were applied (a=0.05). The results showed that there was no difference between the enamel and dentin margins. However, GIC materials presented more microleakage than RMGIC.
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 | 0.001 | 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".