Effect of Ceramic Thickness on Light Attenuation, Degree of Conversion, Knoop Hardness, and Elastic Modulus of Four Luting Resins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the influence of the thickness of disilicate ceramic on the light attenuation (mW/cm2), degree of conversion (DC, %), Knoop hardness (KH, N/mm2) and the elastic modulus (E, MPa) of four luting resins. METHODS: Three resin cements: RelyX Veneer (RV, 3M Oral Care, Monrovia, CA USA); Allcem Veneer APS (AC, FGM); Variolink Esthetic LC (VE, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and one flowable resin composite Tetric N-Flow (TF, Ivoclar Vivadent) were photocured for 20 seconds. The irradiance (mW/cm2) and emission spectrum (mW/cm2/nm) from a broad-spectrum LED light unit (Bluephase G2, Ivoclar Vivadent) were measured over the luting material (control) and through 0.3 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1.0 mm thick ceramic discs (e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). RESULTS: The LED light delivered 26.1 J/cm2 to the surface and 6.2 J/cm2 through the 1.0 mm thick ceramic. The distribution of violet and blue light across the light tip of the light-curing unit (LCU) was relatively homogeneous, but there was less violet range. The irradiance and spectral radiant power decreased significantly as the ceramic thicknesses increased (p<0.001). The luting material type had significant effect on KH and E values (p<0.001). The RV had the greatest KH and E values, and VE had the lowest. Ceramic thickness had no significant effect on KH (p=0.213) and E (p=0.130). The KH (p=0.265) and E (p=0.165) were also not influenced by the location where these measurements were made across the specimens. No significant reduction of the DC was observed as the ceramic thickness increased (p=0.311). CONCLUSION: Increasing the ceramic thickness exponentially reduced the irradiance. This reduction was more pronounced at the shorter wavelengths (violet) of light, with an 82% decrease for 1 mm-thick ceramic. Increasing the ceramic thickness did not affect the DC, irrespective of photoinitiators used in the tested resins. The position of the violet and blue LEDs within the body of the LCU did not influence KH or E in any of the resins tested. The KH and E of VE were significantly lower than the other 3 luting materials tested.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".