Relined fiberglass posts: influence of resin opacity on the bond strength to intraradicular dentin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the bond strength between relined fiberglass posts with different composite resin opacities in different thirds of the intraradicular dentin. Thirty single-rooted premolars were endodontically treated and divided into three groups (n=10): fiberglass posts relined with translucent composite resin, fiberglass posts relined with opaque composite resin, and fiberglass posts without relining. After cementation of the posts, the specimens were cut perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth in slices of approximately 1.3 mm of each third to be analyzed (cervical, middle, and apical) and then subjected to the push-out test. The bond strength (MPa) data were subjected to Shapiro-Wilk normality tests and two-way repeated measures analysis of variance, considering the experimental groups and different regions as study factors. Tukey's post-hoc test (p<.05) was applied for comparisons between the groups. In the cervical third, higher values of bond strength were found for the group relined with translucent resin, with a statistically significant difference for the other groups. In the other regions, both opaque and translucent resins showed similar results, but both showed higher values of bond strength compared to fiberglass posts without relining. The bond strength of fiberglass posts to different thirds of intraradicular dentin is influenced by composite resin relining as well as the opacity of the resin. The use of translucent composite resin is a more effective alternative for fiberglass posts relining.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".