Effect of stepped light exposure on the volumetric polymerization shrinkage and bulk modulus of dental composites and an unfilled resin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the volumetric polymerization shrinkage and dynamic bulk modulus of five resins and an experimental unfilled resin polymerized with a stepped power light and with a conventional one step curing light. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parallel sided glass rings 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm high were etched for 5 min with hydrofluoric acid and silanated. The density and volume of the rings were calculated before they were filled with either SureFil, AEliteflo, Pertac II, Z100, or an experimental unfilled resin. When cured, the resin was bonded to the glass ring which produced a mold with a configuration C-factor of approximately 0.8. The resin was cured for 40 s on each side using either a one step curing light or a stepped power curing light. After curing, the specimens were weighed in air and in water to calculate their final density and volumetric shrinkage. Ten samples were made using each light system and for each resin (total of 100 samples). The bulk modulus was determined for each resin using an ultrasonic method, and the percentage filler contents were determined by thermogravimetric analysis. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD volumetric polymerization shrinkage values ranged from 3.10 +/- 1.19% for SureFil using the one step light to 12.35 +/- 1.38% for the unfilled resin using the stepped power curing light. Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test separated the 10 different materials into three significant groups at P= 0.05. The unfilled resin exhibited the highest volumetric shrinkage followed by the flowable composite (AEliteflo). For all materials tested, there was no significant difference in the volumetric shrinkage values when the resin was cured with the one step or the stepped power curing light. There was no significant difference in the volumetric shrinkage values for the hybrid composites (Pertac II, Z100, and SureFil). The volumetric shrinkage values were highly sensitive to filler weight (P < 0.001). Except for Z100, there was no difference in the specific gravity values and velocities of the longitudinal and shear waves and bulk modulus when the one step and stepped power curing lights were used. The bulk modulus values ranged from 6.30 +/- 0.19 GPa for unfilled resin, to 17.10 +/- 1.09 GPa for Z100. Curing with the one step or the stepped curing light had no significant effect on the modulus values for any resin with the exception of Z100, P = 0.05. The bulk modulus values were highly sensitive to filler weight, and higher modulus values were associated with increased filler weight (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the bulk modulus of Pertac II and SureFil (P = 0.05).
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".