Comparative study of the shrinkage behavior of three bulk-fill resin-based composites using the aluminium tooth model with a MOD cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the cusp tip deflection of aluminium tooth models with a mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity filled with three bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs), Aura Ultra Universal (Aura), Admira Fusion x-tra Universal (Admira), and Filtek One shade A2 (Filtek One), to assess the level of shrinkage stress they could produce. The models were prepared using a primer, adhesive and a single RBC increment photo-cured for 20 s at a radiance exitance 1.25 W/cm2. The RBC axial shrinkage strain (ε) and stress (S) were also measured. Micro-computed tomography in combination with silver nitrate infiltration showed no interfacial debonding. The mean cusp tip deflection for Admira was found to be smaller than those for the other two RBCs. Although ε and S for Aura were higher than those for Filtek One, their mean cusp tip deflections were not significantly different. These results could be explained by the temporal behavior of their elastic modulus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".