Investigation to test potential stereolithography materials for development of an <i>in vitro</i> root canal model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims were to compare the physico-chemical properties (zeta-potential, wettability, surface free energy) of stereolithography materials (STL) (Photopolymer, Accura) to dentine and to evaluate the potential of each material to develop Enterococcus faecalis biofilm on their respective surfaces. Eighteen samples of each test material (Photopolymer, Accura, dentine) were employed (total n = 54) and sectioned to 1 mm squares (5 mm x 5 mm) (n = 15) or ground into a powder to measure zeta-potential (n = 3). The zeta-potential of the powder was measured using the Nano-Zetasizer technique. The contact angle (wettability, surface free energy tests) were measured on nine samples using goniometer. The biofilm attachment onto the substrate was assessed on the samples of each material using microscope and image processing software. The data were compared using one-way ANOVA with Dunnett post-hoc tests at a level of significance P ≤ 0.05. Both STL materials showed similar physico-chemical properties to dentine. The materials and dentine had negative charge (Accura: -23.7 mv, Photopolymer: -18.8 mv, dentine: -9.11 mv). The wettability test showed that all test materials were hydrophilic with a contact angle of 47.5°, 39.8°, 36.1° for Accura, Photopolymer and dentine respectively, and a surface free energy of 46.6, 57.7, 59.6 mN/m for Accura, Photopolymer and dentine, respectively. The materials and dentine proved suitable for attachment and growth of E. faecalis biofilm with no statistical differences (P > 0.05). Stereolithography materials show similar physico-chemical properties and growth of E. faecalis biofilm to dentine. Therefore, they may be an alternative to tests requiring dentine.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it