MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753527238 · doi:10.1111/aej.12226

Crystalline phases involved in the hydration of calcium silicate‐based cements: Semi‐quantitative Rietveld X‐ray diffraction analysis

2017· article· en· W2753527238 on OpenAlexaff
Renata Grazziotin‐Soares, M. H. Nekoofar, Thomas E. Davies, Roberto Hübler, Naghmeh Meraji, P. M. H. Dummer

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Endodontic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalcium hydroxideCementEttringiteMaterials scienceCalcium silicateRietveld refinementSilicateCalcium silicate hydrateMineralogyChemical engineeringNuclear chemistryCrystallographyMetallurgyChemistryCrystal structurePortland cementComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chemical comparisons of powder and hydrated forms of calcium silicate cements ( CSC s) and calculation of alterations in tricalcium silicate (Ca 3 SiO 5 ) calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH) 2 ) are essential for understanding their hydration processes. This study aimed to evaluate and compare these changes in ProRoot MTA , Biodentine and CEM cement. Powder and hydrated forms of tooth coloured ProRoot MTA , Biodentine and CEM cement were subjected to X‐ray diffraction ( XRD ) analysis with Rietveld refinement to semi‐quantitatively identify and quantify the main phases involved in their hydration process. Data were reported descriptively. Reduction in Ca 3 SiO 5 and formation of Ca(OH) 2 were seen after the hydration of ProRoot MTA and Biodentine; however, in the case of CEM cement, no reduction of Ca 3 SiO 5 and no formation of Ca(OH) 2 were detected. The highest percentages of amorphous phases were seen in Biodentine samples. Ettringite was detected in the hydrated forms of ProRoot MTA and CEM cement but not in Biodentine.

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)0.001
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Endodontic JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207