MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900587857 · doi:10.2341/17-351-l

Effect of Simulated Pulpal Microcirculation on Temperature When Light Curing Bulk Fill Composites

2018· article· en· W2900587857 on OpenAlexaff
SSL Braga, LRS Oliveira, MTH Ribeiro, ABF Vilela, G. E. H. da Silva, Richard Bengt Price, Carlos José Soares

Bibliographic record

VenueOperative Dentistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialDentinAdhesiveCuring (chemistry)MolarPulp (tooth)Composite numberIrradianceLight guideResin compositeDentistryLight sourceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the effect of light curing bulk fill resin composite restorations on the increase in the temperature of the pulp chamber both with and without a simulated pulpal fluid flow. Methods and Materials: Forty extracted human molars received a flat occlusal cavity, leaving approximately 2 mm of dentin over the pulp. The teeth were restored using a self-etch adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray) and two different bulk fill resin composites: a flowable (SDR, Dentsply) and a regular paste (AURA, SDI) bulk fill. The adhesive was light cured for 20 seconds, SDR was light cured for 20 seconds, and AURA was light cured for 40 seconds using the Bluephase G2 (Ivoclar Vivadent) or the VALO Cordless (Ultradent) in the standard output power mode. The degree of conversion (DC) at the top and bottom of the bulk fill resin composite was assessed using Fourier-Transform Infra Red spectroscopy. The temperature in the pulp chamber when light curing the adhesive system and resin composite was measured using a J-type thermocouple both with and without the presence of a simulated microcirculation of 1.0-1.4 mL/min. Data were analyzed using Student t-tests and two-way and three-way analyses of variance (α=0.05 significance level). Results: The irradiance delivered by the light-curing units (LCUs) was greatest close to the top sensor of the MARC resin calibrator (BlueLight Analytics) and lowest after passing through the 4.0 mm of resin composite plus 2.0 mm of dentin. In general, the Bluephase G2 delivered a higher irradiance than did the VALO Cordless. The resin composite, LCU, and region all influenced the degree of cure. The simulated pulpal microcirculation significantly reduced the temperature increase. The greatest temperature rise occurred when the adhesive system was light cured. The Bluephase G2 produced a rise of 6°C, and the VALO Cordless produced a lower temperature change (4°C) when light curing the adhesive system for 20 seconds without pulpal microcirculation. Light curing SDR produced the greatest exothermic reaction. Conclusions: Using simulated pulpal microcirculation resulted in lower temperature increases. The flowable composite (SDR) allowed more light transmission and had a higher degree of conversion than did the regular paste (AURA). The greatest temperature rise occurred when light curing the adhesive system alone.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperative DentistrySame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207