Lingual retainer materials: Comparative evaluation of wear resistance of flowable nanocomposites and universal composite: An in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bonded fixed retainer is used to stabilize the alignment of the teeth. Different composites have been introduced for this purpose. This study aimed to investigate the wear resistance of flowable nanocomposite in comparison with microhybrid composite in an in vitro situation.In this in vitro study, 46 disk-shaped specimens were divided into two groups: Filtek Ultimate flowable composite and Z250 microhybrid composite. The samples were prepared in 8 mm diameter and 3 mm thickness in an aluminum mold and light cured. They were polished with 600 grit sandpaper to achieve a smooth surface. Two-body wear test was accomplished by the pin-on-disk device (under 15 N, 20 rpm for 1 h). Analyzing the weight and thickness of specimens before and after the assay demonstrates the wear resistance. Data were analyzed using the t-test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.The Filtek Ultimate flowable composite shows no significant difference compared to Z250 microhybrid composite in thickness (P = 0.701) and weight (P = 0.939) of specimens.Due to wear resistance of both materials, flowable composite can be recommended as an alternative material for bonded fixed retainers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".