MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997935026 · doi:10.1016/j.jds.2019.10.003

Bending resistance and cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc Blue, and HyFlex EDM instruments

2019· article· en· W2997935026 on OpenAlexaff
Soram Oh, Kee‐Yeon Kum, Hyun‐Jung Kim, Su‐Young Moon, Hyeon‐Cheol Kim, A. Chaniotis, Hiran Perinpanayagam, Eugenio Pedullá, Seok Woo Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicShape Memory Alloy Transformations
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersKorea Health Industry Development InstituteMinistry of Health and Welfare
KeywordsCyclic stressMaterials scienceBendingComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several single-file systems manufactured using different heat treatment and operated by different kinematics have been released. This study compared the bending resistance and cyclic fatigue resistance of three NiTi files, and examined their phase-transformation behavior. WaveOne Gold Primary (WOG), Reciproc Blue R25 (RPB), and HyFlex EDM OneFile (HDM) were tested (N = 40/instrument). A vertical load was applied to a point 3 mm from the tip, and the stress was measured until a displacement of 3 mm. Tests were conducted at either room temperature (RT: 22 °C) or body temperature (BT: 37 °C) (n = 10). Cyclic fatigue resistance tests were performed in an artificial canal, which had a curvature angle of 40° and a 5-mm radius. Tests were conducted at either RT or BT (n = 10). Instruments were operated according to the manufacturers' instructions. Test results were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and the Mann–Whitney tests. Additional three instruments of each brand were subjected to differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). At RT the bending resistance of three files were not significantly different. However, at BT the bending resistance of RPB was highest, followed by WOG, and HDM (P < 0.05). At RT, RPB demonstrated the longest fracture time, followed by HDM, and WOG (P < 0.05). At BT, HDM had the longest fracture time, followed by RPB, and WOG (P < 0.05). The WOG, RPB consisted of austenite in a considerable proportion, whereas HDM was mainly martensite state at BT. HDM presented superior flexibility and cyclic fatigue resistance at BT.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental SciencesSame topicShape Memory Alloy TransformationsFrench-language works237,207