Post retention and post/core shear bond strength of four post systems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As clinicians we continue to search for a post system which will give us maximum retention while maximizing resistance to root fracture. The introduction of several new post systems, with claims of high retentive and resistance to root fracture values, require that independent studies be performed to evaluate these claims. This study tested the tensile and shear dislodgment forces of four post designs that were luted into roots 10 mm apical of the CEJ. The Para Post Plus (P1) is a parallel-sided, passive design; the Para Post XT (P2) is a combination active/passive design; the Flexi-Post (F1) and the Flexi-Flange (F2) are active post designs. All systems tested were stainless steel. This study compared the test results of the four post designs for tensile and shear dislodgment. All mounted samples were loaded in tension until failure occurred. The tensile load was applied parallel to the long axis of the root, while the shear load was applied at 450 to the long axis of the root. The Flexi-Post (F1) was significantly different from the other three in the tensile test, however, the Para Post XT (P2) was significantly different to the other three in the shear test and had a better probability for survival in the Kaplan-Meier survival function test. Based on the results of this study, our recommendation is for the Para Post XT (P2).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".