Effect of Resin Luting Systems and Alumina Particle Air Abrasion on Bond Strength to Zirconia
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 aimed to evaluate the effect of different primer/resin luting agent combinations and alumina air abrasion on the adhesion to zirconia. Eighty blocks (4×4×3 mm) of Lava Frame Zirconia (3M ESPE) were produced and randomly assigned into eight groups (n=10) according to two zirconia surface treatments (untreated or air abrasion with 50-μm alumina particles) and four luting systems (SU: Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Unicem 2; ZP: Z-Prime Plus/Duo-link Universal; MB: Monobond Plus/Variolink II; and AP: Alloy Primer/ED Primer II/Panavia F 2.0). After the conditioning and primer applications, resin luting agents were manipulated and applied on the zirconia, using a matrix, to form a cylinder (2 mm in diameter×2 mm high), followed by photoactivation for 40 seconds. After that, the specimens were stored in distilled water (37 °C) for 120 days and then submitted to shear bond strength testing, followed by failure mode evaluation under an optical microscope (30×). A two-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (α=0.05) were used for data analysis. Alumina air abrasion (Al) promoted higher bond values for the three luting systems, except for SU, which showed the best results without air abrasion, while with air abrasion, Al-SU, Al-ZP, and Al-MB presented higher values compared to Al-AP. We concluded that the alumina air abrasion of zirconia surfaces seemed to be dispensable for the SU group, while air abrasion (topographical alterations) enhanced the adhesion of the ZP, MB, and AP groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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