Adhesion and sealing of different universal adhesive systems associated with bulk‐fill resins after using endodontic irrigation solutions: An in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the interface of universal adhesive (UA) with bulk-fill resin (BF) and dentin, after endodontic irrigation. The pulp chamber of 96 molars was irrigated with chlorhexidine 2% (CHX) or sodium hypochlorite 5.25% (NaOCl) and restored according to three restorative protocols. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and nanoleakage tests were performed after 24 h of thermocycling. Kruskal Wallis, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon were performed (p < 0.05). Comparing restorative systems, a difference was found only when irrigated with CHX after 24 h. CHX provided higher μTBS than NaOCl after 24 h for two restorative protocols; after thermocycling, NaOCl provided the greatest μTBS than CHX for one group. Decreased μTBS was observed for all restorative systems when CHX was used after thermocycling. NaOCl demonstrated the highest nanoleakage. The composition of UA influenced the immediate adhesion and sealing to BF when CHX was used; ageing has a deteriorating effect on adhesion and sealing for all restorative systems.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".