Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSES: (1) To evaluate the in vitro sealing ability of several Class II resin restorations whose gingival extension of the proximal margin was apical to the cemento-enamel junction and in dentin and (2) to determine the effect of thermocycling on leakage into the resin-tooth interface. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mesio-occlusal and distoocclusal preparations were made in extracted human molars. The gingival floor of the proximal box, was placed 1.0mm apical to the CEJ, and was prepared to a width of 1.5mm from the cavosurface margin to the axial wall. The teeth were restored with one of seven restorations (Z100 control, Z100, Wave, F2000, Surefil, Z100 and Vitrebond Sandwich A, Z100 and Vitrebond Sandwich B) using multiple incremental placement and materials. Following storage, half the samples were thermocycled. All 70 samples were stained using silver nitrate. The entire resin restoration was then removed from the proximal box ,and starting at the cavosurface margin the gingival floor was divided into three zones of 0.5 mm each and analyzed for dye penetration, using a novel technique which utilized the aid of computer imaging software and assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in leakage for all groups in Zone 1. For Zones 2 and 3, the groups utilizing glass-ionomer liner on the cavosurface margin had significantly less microleakage (P>0.05). Although the compomer/hybrid combination had low leakage values on average, the wide range of values led to unpredictable results. The flowable/hybrid combination and the packable composite performed less favorably. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrated the difficulty in sealing a proximal dentin margin. However, the glass-ionomer/hybrid restorative techniques is the most likely to give successful clinical results.
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".