MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405933607 · doi:10.3390/jfb16010006

Effect of EGCG–Methacrylate-Functionalized Resin Infiltrant on White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study

2024· article· en· W4405933607 on OpenAlexafffund
Karin Landmayer, Bruna de Oliveira Iatarola, Talita Portela Pereira, Alyssa Teixeira Obeid, Mariele Vertuan, Daniela Alvim Chrisostomo, Ana Carolina Magalhães, Lulwah Alreshaid, Paulo Henrique dos Santos, Anuradha Prakki, Luciana Fávaro Francisconi-dos-Rios

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Functional Biomaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceMethacrylateConfocal laser scanning microscopeEnamel paintColor differencePenetration (warfare)Contact angleNuclear chemistryComposite materialPolymerBiomedical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the color change (ΔE00) and penetration depth (PD) of white spot lesions (WSLs) infiltrated with the resin infiltrant (Icon®) functionalized with methacrylate epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG). To introduce polymerizable double bonds, EGCG was reacted with methacryloyl chloride (EM). Subsequently, the Icon resin infiltrant (I) was loaded with neat EGCG (IE) or EGCG–methacrylate (IEM) at 2 wt% each. WSLs were created on bovine enamel blocks and treated with I, IE, or IEM. Sound and untreated enamel surfaces were used as controls (C). Infiltrant PD (%) was determined by Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM, n = 12) analysis. For color change (ΔE00) determination (n = 14), ΔL, Δa, and Δb, half of each sample was kept sound as a reference area. The color was determined with a spectrophotometer. Data were statistically evaluated (p = 0.05). Surface morphology was obtained as a qualitative response variable using 3D CLSM. PD (%) did not differ statistically for I, IE, and IEM (p = 0.780). Groups I and IEM showed similar performance on color change (ΔE00) compared to the control group, while IE exhibited intermediate results, with no significant difference observed between the untreated, I, and IEM groups (p < 0.001). IEM promoted the masking of the WSL color without interfering with the PD.

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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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