Use of polyphenols as a strategy to prevent bond degradation in the dentin–resin interface
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of dentin pretreatment with the polyphenols quercetin and resveratrol on the resin‐dentin microtensile bonding strength ( μ TBS) and collagen fibrils stability of the adhesive interface. Different concentrations (100, 250, 500, or 1,000 μ g ml −1 ) of quercetin or resveratrol, or a mixture of quercetin and resveratrol (3:1, 1:1, 1:3; vol:vol), as well as distilled water or 2% chlorhexidine digluconate, were applied to etched dentin. Then, a two‐step etch‐and‐rinse adhesive was applied followed by composite restoration. Measurements of resin–dentin μ TBS were made after 1 and 120 d. The stability of collagen fibrils in the hybrid layer was evaluated using transmission electron microscopy. The Student's t ‐test and two‐way factorial anova with Tukey's test were used to analyze the effects of dentin pretreatment and storage time on μ TBS values. Comparisons between μ TBS measurements made on 1 and 120 d showed that resveratrol had the best performance, with significantly higher μ TBS values after 120 d for all concentrations of resveratrol tested. Quercetin pretreatment resulted in a significant rise of μ TBS when used at concentrations of 100 and 500 μ g ml −1 . Quercetin + resveratrol at the ratio of 1:1 performed better than when used at ratios of either 3:1 or 1:3. Resveratrol might represent a potential approach to achieve desirable bonding stability and reduce the frequent replacement of composite restorations.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it