MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606301036 · doi:10.1111/jerd.12288

Radiopacity of Resin Cements Using Digital Radiography

2017· article· en· W2606301036 on OpenAlexaff
Sherif Hosney, Hanan K. Abouelseoud, Omar El‐Mowafy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRadiodensityCementation (geology)Materials scienceMolarPremolarRadiographyDigital radiographyOpacityDentistryDentinComposite materialMedicineCementOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Monitoring performance of glass-ceramic based indirect restorations using radiographic imaging might be difficult due to their low radiopacity. Therefore, materials used for their cementation must possess adequate radiopacity. PURPOSE: This study determined radiopacity of a group of resin-cements used for adhesive-cementation of glass-ceramic-based restorations using digital radiography. METHODS: Two specimens were prepared from a group of resin cements (VariolinkII-opaque, VariolinkII-opaque (base), VariolinkII-Transparent, VariolinkII-Transparent (base), Nexus, RelyX Unicem, RelyX ultimate, Duolink, Monocem and Resinomer) and longitudinal sections of same thickness were obtained from molar and premolar. Specimens were assigned to two groups one had molar section with 10 specimens whereas other had premolar with remaining 10 specimens. Each group was placed on digital radiograph sensor (Schick CDR, size 2) together with aluminum step-wedge. Sensor was exposed to X-ray using standard technique. Two images were obtained for each group. Pixel measurements were made using NIH Image-J software. Mean pixel measurements were converted into aluminum thickness equivalents. Data were statistically-analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. RESULTS: ANOVA revealed significant difference in mean pixel values among cements (p < 0.001). VariolinkII-opaque showed highest mean aluminum equivalent (4.6 mm Al/1 mm) followed by VariolinkII-opaque-Base (4.5 mm Al/1 mm), VariolinkII-transparent (4.45 mm Al/1 mm), VariolinkII-transparent-Base (4.45 mm Al/1 mm), Nexus (2.95 mm Al/1 mm), Duolink (2.7 mm Al/1 mm), RelyX Unicem (2.2 mm Al/1 mm) and finally RelyX ultimate (2 mm Al/1 mm). All cements had mean radiopacity values higher than that of enamel whereas Monocem (1.25 mm Al/1 mm) and Resinomer (1.2 mm Al/1 mm) had means between those of enamel and dentin. CONCLUSIONS: All tested resin-cements showed radiopacity values higher than that of dentin which is adequate for diagnostic purposes according to ISO recommendation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of resin cement with adequate radiopacity for adhesive cementation of glass-ceramic based restorations enables their radiographic monitoring. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:215-221, 2017).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistrySame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207