MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738045849 · doi:10.1177/2380084417722117

In Vivo Biodegradation of bisGMA and Urethane-Modified bisGMA-Based Resin Composite Materials

2017· article· en· W2738045849 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBisphenol AResin compositeChemistryAdhesiveComposite numberSalivaIn vivoMaterials scienceDentistryComposite materialEpoxyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to compare the levels of in vivo chemical degradation sustained by bisphenyl-glycidyl-dimethacrylate (bisGMA)–based and urethane-modified bisGMA-based resin composites. A cohort of 58 patients was recruited for the study. Human salivary esterase activity (HSDE) was measured for each patient prior to restoration placement. Class V or III composite restorations without occlusal contacts were placed in adult patients using a 3-step adhesive (Scotchbond MP, 3M) and 1 of 2 resin composites: a traditional bisGMA-based (Z250; 3M) ( n = 28) or a urethane-modified bisGMA-based composite (TPH Spectra, Dentsply) ( n = 30). Patients followed a 2-min rinse (saline containing 20% ethanol) protocol before, immediately after, and 7 days after restoration placement. The rinse samples were analyzed for the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) and bishydroxypropoxyphenylpropane (bisHPPP), a bisGMA breakdown product, using high-performance liquid chromatography in combination with mass spectrometry. The overall mean ± standard error (SE) HSDE activity was 23.4 ± 1.9 U/mL, with no statistical difference between the Z250 (22.6 ± 2.8 U/mL) and TPH (24.1 ± 2.1 U/mL) groups ( P = 0.69). BPA was not detected from any rinse samples. BisHPPP was detected from both composites only in rinse samples immediately after resin composite placement (0.59 µg/mm 2 ± 0.16 and 0.68 µg/mm 2 ± 0.16 for Z250 and TPH, respectively, P = 0.767). There was no statistically significant correlation between HSDE and amount of bisHPPP obtained from the saliva for the Z250 group ( r = 0.071, P = 0.723), TPH group ( r = 0.266, P = 0.155), and both groups combined ( r = 0.080, P = 0.549). Conventional commercial resin composite materials used in the current study did not release any detectable amount of BPA and only showed detectable levels of bisHPPP for a short term after placement, suggesting that hydrolytic consumption of any available resin substrate is fast and the generated products are rapidly diluted below the detection level limit (<20 ppb) in the oral cavity. This short-term release of bisHPPP was not significantly affected by material type or esterase level in the saliva. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This clinical study demonstrated that the duration and degree of biodegradation of 2 representative formulations of resin composites was limited in both duration and amounts of detectable matrix derived degradation products. No significant level of potential biohazards was released following the application of the resin composites. The results of this study can help oral care professionals address concerns from their patients about possible health issues regarding the application of resin composite restorative materials.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.263 · 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