Pulp Chamber Heating: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Different Light Sources and Resin Composite Layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the temperature variation inside the pulp chamber during light-activation of the adhesive and resin composite layers with different light sources. Cavities measuring 8x10 mm were prepared on the buccal surface of bovine incisors, leaving a remaining dentin thickness of 1 mm. Specimens were placed in a 37±1 °C water bath to standardize the temperature. The temperature in the pulp chamber was measured every 10 s during 40 s of light activation of the adhesive system (SBMP-3M/ESPE) and in the three consecutive 1-mm-thick layers of resin composite (Z250-3M/ESPE). Three light source devices were evaluated: Elipar 2500 (QTH), LD Max (LED low irradiance) and VALO (LED high irradiance). The results were submitted to one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and Tukey's test, both with p<0.001. The exothermic reaction warming was observed in the Z250 increments, but not in the SBMP. The high irradiance LED showed a higher temperature average (42.7±1.56 °C), followed by the quartz-tungsten-halogen light (40.6±0.67 °C) and the lower irradiance LED (37.8±0.12 °C). Higher temperature increases were observed with the adhesive and the first resin composite increment light-activation, regardless of the employed light source. From the second increment of Z250, the restorative material acted as a dispersive structure of heat, reducing temperature increases. Regardless the light source and restorative step, the temperature increased with the irradiation time. It may be concluded that the light source, irradiation time and resin composite thickness interfered in the temperature variation inside the pulp chamber.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".