Radiant-exposure attenuation through Class-2 proximal slots.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the extent of radiant exposure (RE) attenuation of three LED light-polymerization units (LPUs), and their beam-profile, at the bottom of the Class-2 slot, using MARC-PS. METHODS: 10 seconds RE was delivered to MARC-PS' anterior sensor by Bluephase-Style, Demi-Plus, and Deep-Cure-S. Two ivorine lower first-molars received Class-2 proximal box preparations: (3×2×4 mm and 4×4×4 mm) and were sectioned horizontally above the cementoenamel junction. Tofflemire matrix-retainer was placed around each tooth and secured with a low-fusing compound. Each LPU tested delivered 10 seconds RE to MARC-PS through proximal slots. Mean RE of three readings per group was obtained. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation, mixed ANOVAs with a pre-set alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: RE attenuation ratio calculated from the baseline to 4× 4×4/3×2×4 Class-2 boxes were: 58.25/80.03 Bluephase-Style; 49.36/80.25 Demi-Plus; 32.8/77.43 Deep-Cure-S. A significant and strong correlation (r= 0.86, P< 0.001) between the reduction in aperture size and RE was found. The beam profile of LED-LPUs tested decreased RE values at the bottom of a proximal box. More than 80% RE value reduction from the baseline to the smallest Class-2 cavity 3×2×4 aperture was observed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Polymerization of resin-composites at the bottom of the Class-2 box is challenging due to the small aperture size, depth, and hard-to-reach location. Inadequate polymerization at the bottom of the Class-2 proximal box is a causative factor for secondary caries and, ultimately, restoration failure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".