Incorporation of a hydrophilic amide monomer into a one-step self-etch adhesive to increase dentin bond strength: Effect of application time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose was to evaluate the effect of a hydrophilic amide monomer on μTBS of one-step adhesive to dentin at different application times. Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (UBQ), experimental adhesive (UBQexp; same compositions as UBQ but hydrophilic amide monomer was replaced with 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate), Clearfil SE ONE and Clearfil SE Bond were applied to midcoronal dentin prepared with 600-grit SiC at different application time (0, 10, 20 and 40 s). Water sorption (Wsp) and the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of polymerized adhesives were also measured. UBQ showed significantly lower Wsp and higher UTS than UBQexp. At each application time, UBQ exhibited significantly higher μTBSs than UBQexp. UBQ showed the highest μTBS at 0 s application time among all the adhesives. When the application time was prolonged from 0 s to 10 s, only UBQ showed no significant difference. The hydrophilic amide monomer increased μTBS with reduction in Wsp and increase in the UTS and may allow a shortened application time.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".