Factors that affect the shear bond strength of multiple component and single bottle adhesives to dentin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of thermocycling and the long-term integrity of the bonds between adhesive and resin composite to bovine dentin using multi-step and single bottle adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentin bonding sites were prepared using water irrigated #600 grit SiC paper on bovine incisor crowns mounted in acrylic resin. A 4 mm diameter area of dentin was etched, rinsed, left visibly moist and adhesives applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. The adhesives were: Scotchbond Multipurpose, Single Bond, All Bond 2, One Step, and Prime & Bond 2.1. Cylinders of Z100 resin composite 4 mm in diameter were positioned over the adhesive and visible light-cured. Bonded specimens were divided into five groups each containing 12 samples and: (1) stored in water for 24 hours; (2) stored in water for 7 days; (3) stored in water for 270 days; (4) thermocycled after 24 hours and stored for a total lapsed time of 7 days; (5) stored in water for 6.5 days, and thermocycled for a total lapsed time of 7 days. All storage temperatures were 37 degrees C. All specimens were shear (SBS) tested to failure at the end of each storage period, the results converted to MPa and the mode of fracture failure recorded. RESULTS: The SBS for all five adhesives deteriorated over time; the effects of thermocycling were shown to be variable and dependant upon the adhesive; the modes of fracture failure were shown to be adhesive/cohesive or mixed; after long-term (270 days) storage there was an increased tendency for adhesive/cohesive fracture failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".