Hardness of Resin Cements Polymerized through Glass-Ceramic Veneers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the hardness of resin cements polymerized through ceramic disks under different process factors (ceramic type and thickness, light-polymerization units and polymerization time); (2) Method: Three types of ceramic blocks were used (IPS e.max CAD; Celtra Duo; VITABLOCS). Ceramic disks measuring 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm were cut from commercial blocks. Two resin cements (Rely X Veneer and Variolink Esthetic) were polymerized through the ceramic specimens using distinct light-polymerization units (Deep-cure; Blue-phase) and time intervals (10 and 20 s). Hardness of cement specimens was measured using microhardness tester with a Knoop indenter. Data were statistically analyzed using factorial ANOVA (α = 5%); (3) Results: Mean microhardness of Rely X Veneer cement was significantly higher than that of Variolink Esthetic. Deep-cure resulted in higher mean microhardness values compared to Blue-phase at 0.5- and 1-mm specimen thicknesses. Moreover, a direct correlation was found between polymerization time and hardness of resin cement; (4) Conclusions: Surface hardness was affected by resin cement type and ceramic thickness, and not affected by ceramic types, within evaluated conditions. Increasing light-polymerization time significantly increased the hardness of the cement.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it