Effect of a 4 mm vs. a 6 mm Diameter Mold on the Depth of Cure of 6 Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental researchers and manufacturers use the ISO 4049 standard to determine the depth of cure (DoC) of resin-based composites (RBCs). This standard uses a 4 mm diameter stainless-steel mold and subsequently divides the length of the remaining hard RBC by 2. However, the DoC values obtained using this mold have been challenged. Six bulk-fill RBCs (Tetric plus Fill, Tetric plus Flow, Tetric PowerFill, Tetric PowerFlow, Filtek One, and Aura Bulk Fill) were used to investigate the limitations of the 4 mm diameter mold used in the ISO 4049 standard when compared to a 6 mm diameter metal mold that represented the dimensions of a large cavity in a tooth. Two distinct light curing units were used. One light (Elipar S10) emitted a single peak wavelength of light, while the other (Bluephase G4) was a broad-spectrum, multiple-peak curing light. After 10 s of photocuring, the uncured RBC was immediately removed using acetone. The maximum length of the hard RBC remaining was measured and divided by two so that the effect of these two mold diameters on the DoC results could be compared. The DoC of all six RBCs tested was consistently greater in the 6 mm diameter mold (p < 0.0001). Sectioning revealed that the solvent-dissolved specimens had a clear internal boundary between the apparently well-cured RBC and a peripheral, solvent-resistant, “frosty” region. Using a 4 mm diameter stainless-steel mold resulted in a reduced depth of cure values compared to those obtained when the 6 mm diameter mold was used. The use of a broad-spectrum, multiple-peak LED curing light proved unnecessary for photocuring the six RBCs used in this study.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".