In vitro analysis of flowable and high viscosity bulk fill composite versus conventional composite in core build up of endodontically treated teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to test the load to fracture of flowable and high viscosity bulk-fill composites compared to a convetional (packable) composite used to build up pulpless teeth. 45 endodontically treated premolars were restored with fiber posts then divided into three groups (N = 15) according to the core build-up material. SDR group: (Smart Dentine Replacement), (BF): Filtek One Bulk Fill and (CC) Filtek Z350 packable composite. After core build up the teeth received full coverage crowns. Load to fracture (Newton) was recorded for each specimen. One-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test were used. The highest load at fracture was shown by (CC) group (1067 N), followed by (BF) group (879 N), and the SDR group (838 N). One way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons test demonstrated no significant differences between CC, SDR, and BF groups (p > 0.05). The three materials showed comparable load to fracture. Further studies with simulation to occlusal forces and oral temperature are required.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".