MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173808260 · doi:10.1007/s10856-021-06553-3

Aluminum-free glass ionomer cements containing 45S5 Bioglass® and its bioglass-ceramic

2021· article· en· W3173808260 on OpenAlexafffund
Alireza Zandi Karimi, Ehsan Rezabeigi, R. A. L. Drew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Materials in Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsMaterials scienceBioactive glassCeramicComposite materialGlass ionomer cementCrystallinityCompressive strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although the incorporation of bioactive glasses into glass ionomer cements (GICs) has led to promising results, using a bioactive glass as the only solid component of GICs has never been investigated. In this study, we developed an Al-free GIC with standard compressive strength using various combinations of 45S5 Bioglass ® and its glass-ceramic as the solid component. The glass-ceramic particles with 74% crystallinity were used for this purpose as they can best act as both remineralizing and reinforcing agents. Strengthening mechanisms including crack deflection and crack-tip shielding were activated for the GICs containing 50–50 wt% bioglass and bioglass-ceramic as the optimum ratio. The progression of the GIC setting reaction at its early stages was also monitored and verified. We also discussed that our bimodal particle size distribution containing both micron- and nanosized particles may enhance the packing density and integrity of the structure of the cements after setting. In such GICs produced in this study, the toxic effects of Al are avoided while chemical bonds are expected to form between the cement and the surrounding hard tissue(s) through interfacial biomineralization and adhesion.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science Materials in MedicineSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207