Changes in the Mechanical Response of Dental Stone to Submersion in Saline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".