The impact of using two fiber-reinforced composites with different placement methods on the flexural strength of two resin materials: an in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This in vitro study assessed the influence of using two types of fiber-reinforced composite with different placement methods on the flexural strength of two resin materials. METHODS: UD(UD) / WOVEN (WO)) with two resin composites (BEAUTIFIL II (BT II) and BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus (BF+)). Seven placements were employed to prepare specimens for each composite, including one control group without FRCs, two using UD, and the other four using WO. Specimens were prepared for flexural strength testing to evaluate the mechanical properties. Fracture mode was examined by dividing it into three categories. Three-way ANOVA and Tucky' HSD test was performed (α = 0.05), with macro images and scanning electron microscope (SEM) micrographs analyzed. RESULTS: In comparison to the control group, experimental groups utilizing BEAUTIFIL II (BT II) and BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus (BF+) with FRCs showed higher flexural strength (116.80 ± 11.45 MPa/107.02 ± 13.68 MPa and 302.06 ± 89.00 MPa/358.16 ± 96.10 MPa, respectively) (p < 0.05). Three-way ANOVA revealed that the flexural strength values were significantly affected by different resin composites, placing methods and fiber orientation respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FRCs can be used as a reinforcing material for resin composites in a simulation of direct restoration. In some situations, the use of FRCs avoided complete fracture. The placement of FRCs and the composite used could be considered when applied clinically. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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".