MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755915174 · doi:10.1111/jopr.12672

Interfacial Fracture Toughness of Adhesive Resin Cement—Lithium‐Disilicate/Resin‐Composite Blocks

2017· article· en· W2755915174 on OpenAlexaff
Samer Mesmar, N. Dorin Ruse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInro Consultants (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialAdhesiveScanning electron microscopeComposite numberToughnessFracture toughnessCeramic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Resin composite blocks (RCB) are advocated as alternative to ceramic blocks (CB). Prior to use, adherence to these materials should characterized. This study aimed to test the null hypothesis (H0) that material and surface treatment combinations do not influence interfacial fracture toughness (KIC) of a self‐cured adhesive resin cement [RelyX Ultimate (RXU)] to RCB or CB, under nonaged and aged conditions. Materials and Methods Two RCB, Lava Ultimate (LU) and Enamic (EN), and one CB, IPS e.max Press (EMP) were used. Half‐size [(6 × 6 × 6 × 6 mm)] specimens were prepared for EMP (n = 30), EN (n = 30), and LU (n = 60). RCB specimens were prepared by wet cutting/grinding, while CB specimens were pressed. Surfaces of EMP and EN were preconditioned with hydrofluoric acid (5%); surfaces of LU were sandblasted with either 27 μm alumina (LUS) or 30 μm silica‐modified alumina Rocatec soft (LUR). All specimens were bonded with Scotchbond Universal adhesive and RXU. Additionally, twenty (4 × 4 × 4 × 8 mm) RXU specimens were prepared. All specimens were stored in water at 37°C and tested after 1 and 60 days. Interfacial KIC was determined with the notchless triangular prism specimen KIC test. Results were analyzed with two‐way ANOVA and Scheffé multiple means comparisons (α = 0.05). Preconditioned and selected fractured surfaces were characterized with scanning electron microscopy. Results At 24 hours, LUS‐RXU and LUR‐RXU had significantly higher interfacial KIC than EN‐RXU and EMP‐RXU and were not different from KIC of RXU. Aging lead to a significant decrease in KIC of RXU and interfacial KIC of LUS‐RXU, LUR‐RXU, and EMP‐RXU; interfacial KIC of EN‐RXU was not affected. Based on the results, H0 was rejected. Conclusion Under the conditions of this study, at 24 hours, interfacial KIC of LUS‐RXU and LUR‐RXU was superior to EMP‐RXU and EN‐RXU. Aging in water at 37°C did not affect interfacial KIC of EN‐RXU but adversely affected KIC of RXU and the other interfacial KIC. Clinical Implications: The results suggest that RXU and its adherence to LU and EMP deteriorates upon exposure to water at 37°C. In making clinical decisions related to material selection, practitioners should consider in vitro results.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ProsthodonticsSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207