X-ray Diffraction Analysis of ProRoot Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Hydrated at Different pH Values.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the chemical compounds of white ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) hydrated at different pH environments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Mixed samples of WMTA were kept in acidic (pH=5.4), neutral (pH=7.4) and alkaline (pH=9.4) environments for 48 h. Then, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed for both hydrated and powder forms of WMTA. Portlandite crystalline structures of environments were compared from three aspects: intensity (height of the peak, corresponding to the concentration), crystallinity (peak area/total area) and crystal size (full-width at half-maximum of the peak). RESULTS: After matching the peaks of each sample with those of the International Center for Diffraction Data (ICDD) database, the main constituent of all set cements and powder form was found to be bismuth oxide. Acidic environment exhibited lower intensity and crystallinity of portlandite in comparison with neutral environment. CONCLUSION: The highest concentration and crystallinity of portlandite were observed in WMTA samples hydrated at neutral pH and the highest crystal size was detected after hydration in alkaline pH.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".