Comparative analysis of conversion and crosslinking degree in bulk-fill, monochromatic, and ORMOCER composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bulk-fill, monochromatic, and ORMOCER composites were introduced in restorative dentistry with the aim of reducing clinical time and/or alleviating contraction stresses at the interface between the tooth and restoration. While the conversion and immediate properties of these materials are comparable to conventional composites, studies evaluating their long-term properties and the structure of the polymer matrix are lacking. The objective of this study was to evaluate the degree of conversion and, indirectly, the crosslink density of conventional, bulk-fill, monochromatic, and ORMOCER resin composites. The degree of conversion was measured using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Flexural strength, elastic modulus, and hardness were measured both dry (24 h) and after ethanol storage (24 h) using three-point bending and Knoop microhardness testing, respectively. Sorption and solubility were determined by changes in mass before and after immersion in water and drying. Data were analyzed using one-way or two-way ANOVA (material or material/storage conditions). The degree of conversion was statistically similar across all materials. For composites from the same manufacturer, no significant differences were observed in the reduction of mechanical properties after ethanol storage between bulk-fill and monochromatic composites, although differences were noted for the ORMOCER material. Sorption and solubility varied among most composites from the same manufacturer, suggesting subtle differences in composition. Therefore, it can be concluded that, for composites from the same manufacturer, the degree of crosslinking was similar between bulk-fill and monochromatic composites, indicating comparable polymeric structures. The same was not observed for the ORMOCER material, although it exhibits properties similar to other conventional composites.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".