Air-drying time of self-etching adhesives vs bonding efficacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study tested the effect of different drying times on the efficacy of bond for five self-etching adhesives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four marketed and one experimental adhesive were tested in combination with a hybrid-type resin composite (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer): Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB, Kuraray), G-Bond (GBO, GC), Hybrid Bond (HYB, Sun Medical), iBond NG experimental (ING, Heraeus Kulzer), Clearfil S3 Bond (TSB, Kuraray). Three hundred twenty human molars were randomly divided into 40 separate groups. For shear bond strength (SBS) testing, the adhesives were applied to flat peripheral dentin surfaces. Following the manufacturers' specified dwell times, the adhesives were air dried for 0, 5, 10, or 20 s prior to light activation and seating of composite cylinders (n = 8). The specimens were stored for 24 h in 37 degrees C water and submitted to shear bond strength testing at 1 mm/min. For evaluation of marginal adaptation, Venus restorations were bonded in standardized cylindrical dentin cavities (>4 mm in diameter, 1.5 mm in depth) according to the procedure above and immersed in water at 23 degrees C for 10 min prior to removal of excess using #4000 SiC paper and determination of the maximum marginal gap widths (MGW, n = 8). Bond strength data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Duncan's ranking (p < 0.05), and marginal adaptation by Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Mann-Whitney ranking (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Both SBSs and numbers of gap-free restorations increased significantly with drying time (p < 0.05). All materials performed best after air drying for 10 s or longer. CONCLUSIONS: Since the optimal drying times found diverge from the manufacturer's directions for use, recommendations might need to be revised.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".