MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404361476 · doi:10.1111/jopr.13977

Wettability of saliva substitutes across various denture base fabrication techniques

2024· article· en· W4404361476 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Mikhail, Igor J. Pesun, Francisco X. Azpiazu‐Flores, Rodrigo França

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact angleSalivaWettingDenturesMaterials scienceDentistrySignificant differenceAcrylic resinComposite materialChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The present study evaluated the contact angles (CAs) of four denture base materials subjected to different surface treatments using deionized water and saliva substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 32 rectangular specimens were manufactured using four different denture base materials: heat-cured compression molded Lucitone 199 (C), milled Lucitone 199 (M), Formlabs Denture Base RP (P), and SR Ivocap High Impact (I). The CA of the surface of the unaltered, mechanically polished, and sandblasted surface specimens was evaluated after the application of five saliva substitutes: Biotene, VEGA, Spry, Moi-Stir, Dentilube, and ionized water. Ten droplet measurements were obtained for each group, with each droplet analyzed for advancing contact angle (ACA), receding contact angle (RCA), and the contact angle hysteresis (CAH) was calculated. The data of the experiment was analyzed using 2-way ANOVA, (α = 0.05) with Tukey's test. RESULTS: CAH was demonstrated to have statistically significant differences among the denture bases (p < 0.05), with unaltered 3D printed exhibiting the largest CAH, followed by unaltered milled. The unaltered denture bases exhibited higher CAH than the polished, and there were no significant differences in CAH among the polished denture bases (p > 0.05). Sandblasting increased the ACA of the milled and conventional bases. The saliva substitutes exhibited differences in ACA, with Spry and VEGA having the highest ACA, and Biotene had the lowest CA of all the saliva substitutes evaluated. CONCLUSION: The manufacturing methods of denture bases influences the CAH, while the chemical composition of the denture base specimens does not appear to affect CAH. Sandblasting increases the ACA for the milled and conventional groups. Saliva substitutes do impact the ACA. Drawing from previous research, it is hypothesized that a 3D-printed denture base or sandblasting a milled denture base may offer greater resistance to dislodgement.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ProsthodonticsSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207