In vitro comparative effects of alcohol-containing and alcohol-free mouthwashes on surface roughness of bulk-fill composite resins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the effects of alcohol-containing and alcohol-free mouthwashes on the surface roughness of bulk-fill composite resins. In this in-vitro, experimental study, 60 composite specimens measuring 6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height were fabricated from Tetric N-Ceram and X-tra fil composite resins using a stainless-steel mold. After curing for 20 s, the specimens were immersed in distilled water and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Baseline roughness was measured before dividing them into three groups for immersion in water, alcohol-containing, or alcohol-free Listerine for 24 h, simulating two years of use. The specimens were then dried at room temperature, and their surface roughness was measured again. Data was analyzed by two-way ANOVA and t-test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant change occurred in surface roughness of specimens after immersion in the respective solutions (P > 0.05). The type of composite and the type of solution had no significant effect on the surface roughness of specimens (P > 0.05). The results showed that Listerine alcohol-containing and alcohol-free mouthwashes had no significant effect on the surface roughness of the tested bulk-fill composite resins and no significant difference with each other in this respect.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".