MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978444168 · doi:10.29173/aar55

Changes in the Mechanical Response of Dental Stone to Submersion in Saline

2019· article· en· W2978444168 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joanne Cai, Kathryn Houg, Dan L. Romanyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Academic Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriodontal fiberSalineSubmersion (mathematics)DentistryDisplacement (psychology)Dental alveolusMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Materials scienceMoldOrthodonticsMedicineComposite materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously, dental stone has been utilized in mechanical testing of the periodontal ligament, which connects the tooth to the alveolar bone. This was achieved by casting swine mandibles in dental stone for displacement controlled testing. The stone was used as a riding base to hold the mandible in place. However, this was done in dry, ex vivo conditions, failing to simulate the natural presence of vascular fluid in the periodontal ligament. While this can be simulated with submersion in saline, the mechanical response of dental stone to saline is currently unknown, and thus cannot yet be used to secure the mandible in saline. To identify differences in the strength of dental stone after submersion in saline, Coecal Type III Dental Stone samples were cast in a 3D printed mold, then submerged in 0.9% NaCl solution for varying time periods: 0 hours, 0.5 hours, 1 hour, 4 hours, and 24 hours. Samples were then removed from the solutions, patted dry, and placed in an Instron ElectroPuls E3000 for compression tests. The Instron preloaded samples to 3 N, displaced them to 0.1 mm at 0.025 mm/s, held them for 10 s, then offloaded at 0.025 mm/s. This cycle was repeated five times per test, with each sample undergoing two tests. Results showed that the last three cycles of each test were most consistent, and were the only ones considered in further analysis of results. The average peak force and average force during the 10 s hold of each test were compared across submersion times, and, considering standard deviation, showed no consistent differences. A linear regression was completed to determine statistical differences between the force values. The p-values of the average peak force and average force were 0.624 and 0.892 respectively, approaching the required value of 1, and therefore failed to reject the null hypothesis, representing no significant difference in the average force across submersion times. As a result, it can be assumed that submersion in saline has no effect on the strength of dental stone. These results can be applied to further research on the periodontal ligament, involving submersion of the swine mandible in saline solutions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Academic ReviewSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207