MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343951366

Shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets cemented to bovine enamel with composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.

2003· article· en· W2343951366 on OpenAlexaff
K.C. Titley, Raj Deep Mahal, P. Emile Rossouw, Gajanan V. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass ionomer cementBracketEnamel paintCementAdhesiveComposite materialSealantMedicineDentistryMaterials scienceBond strengthDental cement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the effects of short- and long-term storage on the shear bond strength of metal, polycarbonate, and ceramic orthodontic bracket bases using autopolymerizing resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC). The glass ionomer cement was applied in both a wet and a dry environment. METHODS: With a method developed in the authors' laboratory, orthodontic brackets were cemented under constant pressure to embedded bovine incisor enamel. All cements were mixed and applied in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, 7 days, or 180 days. After the lapse of each time interval, they were shear tested to failure. The shear bond strengths (SBSs) were converted to megapascals (MPa). An adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to record the site of the residual cement. RESULTS: There were no precipitous increases or decreases in SBS over a lapsed time of 180 days, although some variations occurred between 24 hours and 7 days. Similar findings were recorded for ARI. CONCLUSIONS: The bracket base-cement combinations produce clinically sustainable SBSs over time. Selection of the cement may be important in patients who exhibit a high risk for caries.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207