The effectiveness of glass ionomer cement as a fiber post cementation system in endodontically treated teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the performance of a glass ionomer (GC Gold Label 1, GIC) as a fiber post cementation system for glass fiber posts with a self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, RUC) and a conventional resin cement system (Scotchbond Muli-Purpose and Relyx ARC, RAC). Thirty endodontically treated canines were randomly divided in three groups (n = 10), according to the fiber post cementation system: (RAC)-Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and Relyx X ARC; (RUC)-Relyx U200 and (GIC)-GC Gold Label 1 Luting & Lining. Rhodamine was incorporated into the cementation system prior to the fiber post cementation. After glass fiber post cementation, roots were incubated in artificial saliva for 6 months. After that, specimens from the cervical, middle, and apical thirds of the post space were prepared and analyzed using a push-out bond strength test and confocal laser microscopy. ANOVA one way and Tukey tests showed that GIC and RUC demonstrated similar push-out bond strength values, independently of the post space third (p > .05); however, values were greater than those shown by RAC (p < .05). For dentin penetrability, GIC and RUC also had similar results (p > 0.05) and lower than RAC (p < 0.05). Inside the root canal, the cementation system using glass ionomer cement (GC Gold Label 1 Luting & Lining) has similar push-out bond strength to the self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200) and these were higher than the conventional resin (Relyx ARC), despite its higher dentin penetrability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".