Effect of Three Heating Guns on the Temperature of Two Bulk‐Fill Resin‐Based Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of three heating guns-Phasor (Vista Apex, Racine, USA), VisCalor (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany), and Compex HD (AdDent Inc. Danbury, USA)-on the temperature changes of two bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs): VisCalor Bulk (VBF, VOCO) and Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (OBF, Solventum, St. Paul, USA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Temperature changes were measured using a thermal camera (PI 640i, Optris Infrared Measurements, Berlin, Germany) during insertion and photocuring in a simulated proximal box of a Class II cavity and within the RBC capsules during heating. The RBCs were photocured using the Bluephase PowerCure (Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein) for 20s. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test for each RBC (α = 0.05). The temperature of the RBCs at the same depth were analyzed by t-test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: OBF heated with Compex produced the lowest temperature rise at the pulpal floor (2.7°C ± 0.4°C), while VBF heated with Phasor produced the highest (8.8°C ± 2.4°C). The greatest temperature increases were at the top of the restoration. OBF heated with Phasor reached 48.6°C ± 4.7°C. The Phasor and VisCalor produced two temperature peaks in the RBC inside the capsule, while the Compex maintained a steady peak temperature. CONCLUSION: The heating gun and RBC produced different temperatures when heating, inserting, and light-activation of the RBCs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The choice of RBC and heating gun can substantially affect the temperature of the RBC and influence its handling properties.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".