Effect of exposure time on the polymerization of resin cement through ceramic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study measured the effects of using three different exposure times to cure one resin cement through two types of ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One light-curing resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) was exposed for 20 s, 40 s, or 60 s with a BluePhase G2 light (Ivoclar Vivadent) on the high power setting through 1.0 mm of either ZirPress (ZR) or Empress Esthetic (EST) ceramic (Ivoclar Vivadent). The degree of conversion (DC) of the resin was measured 100 s after light exposure. The Knoop microhardness (KHN) was measured 5 min after light exposure and again after 24 h. The DC and KHN results were analyzed with ANOVA followed by Scheffe's post-hoc multiple comparison tests at α = 0.05. RESULTS: Increasing exposure time had a significant effect on the KHN and DC values for the resins exposed through both ceramics. As exposure times increased, the influence of the ceramic was reduced; however, the microhardness values were greater for the cement exposed through EST ceramic. When the exposure time was increased from 20 s to 40 s, microhardness values for the resin increased by 39.6% through the EST ceramic. When exposed for 60 s, there were no differences between the 100-s DC values or 5-min KHN values using either ceramic (p > 0.05). There was an excellent correlation between the DC at 100 s and the microhardness values measured at 5 min. CONCLUSION: Resin polymerization was greater through EST than ZR ceramic. At least 40 s to 60 s from the Blue- Phase G2 on high power mode is required to cure this resin cement through 1.0 mm of ceramic.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".