MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286207934 · doi:10.1177/22808000221112989

Exploring the use of a Ruthenium complex incorporated into a methacrylate-based dental material for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy

2022· article· en· W4286207934 on OpenAlexafffund
Adriana Pigozzo Manso, Maria Luísa Leite, Patricia Comeau, Claudia Dietrich, Sahand Ghaffari, Dirk Lange, Neil R. Branda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPhotodynamic therapyRutheniumAntimicrobialMethacrylateDentistryMaterials scienceNanotechnologyMedicineMonomerChemistryComposite materialOrganic chemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of a blue light photosensitizer (PS), Ruthenium II complex (Ru), on the chemical, physical, mechanical, and antimicrobial properties of experimental dental resin blends. Methods: The experimental resin (BisEMA, TEEGDMA, HPMA, ethanol, and photoinitiator) was loaded with Ru at 0.00%, 0.07%, 0.14%, 0.28%, 0.56%, 1.12%, 1.2%, 1.5%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, or 10% w/w. Samples were evaluated for the degree of conversion (DC) after 30 and 60 s curing-time ( n = 6). Selected formulations (0.00%, 0.28%, 0.56%, 1.12%) were further tested for shear bond strength (SBS) ( n = 15); flexural strength (FS) ( n = 12); and antimicrobial properties (CFUs), in dark and light conditions. These latter tests were performed on specimens stored for 24-h or 2-month in 37°C water. Water sorption (WS) and solubility (SL) tests were also performed ( n = 12). Data were analyzed either by a one- or two-factor general linear model (α = 0.05). Results: Overall, Ru concentration above 1.2% resulted in reduced DC. In SBS results, only the 1.12%Ru resin blend samples had statistically lower values compared to the 0.00%Ru resin blend at 24-h storage ( p = 0.004). In addition, no differences in SBS were detected among the experimental groups after 2-month storage in water. Meanwhile, FS increased for all experimental groups under similar aging conditions ( p < 0.001). Antimicrobial properties were improved upon inclusion of Ru and application of light ( p < 0.001 for both) at 24-h and 2-month storage. Lastly, no detectable changes in WS or SL were observed for the Ru-added resins compared to the 0.00%Ru resin blend. However, the 0.28% Ru blend presented significantly higher WS compared to the 0.56% Ru blend ( p = 0.007). Conclusions: Stable SBS, improved FS, and sustained antimicrobial properties after aging gives significant credence to our approach of adding the Ruthenium II complex into dental adhesive resin blends intended for an aPDT approach.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional MaterialsSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207