Flexural Strength of an Indirect Composite Modified with Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The low resistance to fracture has limited the use of indirect composite resins for dental restorations, particularly in regions that are exposed to strong occlusal forces. To overcome this issue, different types of reinforcement for composites have been proposed, one of which is carbon nanotubes (CNTs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the flexural resistance of one commercial indirect composite resin (Sinfony, 3M/ESPE) after incorporation of single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs; Sigma–Aldrich, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, United States) with or without the silanization form. Materials and Methods Specimens of composite resin were fabricated in a Teflon mold. The composite resin was prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions (n = 10 for each group), with SWCNTs in three concentrations. Statistical Analysis The SWCNTs and SWCNT/SiO2-ATES specimens were evaluated by transmission electron microscopy, and a flexural test was conducted according to the ISO 4049/2009. Flexural strength data in MPa were submitted to one-way ANOVA following Tukey (p < 0.05). Results The SWCNTs did not improve the flexural strength of indirect composite resin when compared with the control, independent of the concentration added (p > 0.05). However, when SWCNTs and SWCNTs/SiO2-ATES were compared, the SWCNTs/SiO2-ATES showed higher values than the three concentrations of SWCNTs (p < 0.05). Conclusion The silanization process improves the SWCNTs strength proprieties, but the modification of chemical bonding between SWCNT and SWCNT/SiO2-ATES modified resins, in different concentrations, did not improve the composite resin flexural strength.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".