Comparative study of the shrinkage behavior of three bulk-fill resin-based composites using the aluminium tooth model with a MOD cavity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it