Impact of high irradiance and short exposure times on the polymerization kinetics of sculptable and flowable bulk-fill composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the presence of exposure reciprocity in nine resin-based composites (RBCs) using fast (3 s, high irradiance) or standard light-curing modes for 10 s, 20 s, or 30 s. METHODS: ). The degree of conversion (DC) and reaction rates were measured at 0.2 mm and 4 mm depths for 720 s using real-time spectroscopy. Light transmission (%) was also recorded (n = 3). Parametric or non-parametric 2-way ANOVA was used depending on the data (α=0.05). RESULTS: When compared to the values from the bottom of their 0.2 mm thick value, except for TPFlow-3 s and TPlusFlow-3 s, the bottom of the 4-mm thick specimens had a significantly different DC. Only TPF and TPFlow were statistically the same for both modes at 4 mm; ABF-3 s and OBF-3 s had the lowest DC at the bottom of 4 mm. OBF-3 s had the highest reaction rate at 0.2 mm (61.6 ± 1.2 %/s) while FOBF-10 s had the slowest rate (3.1 ± 0.1 %/s) at the bottom of 4 mm. OBF, BRFlow, TPFlow, TplusFill and TplusFlow had different light transmission patterns than the other RBCs. Depending on the brand of RBC, there was a measurable delay of 0.1 to 2.9 s at the bottom of the RBCs before the polymerization reaction started. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure reciprocity does not exist for all RBCs. Depending on the brand of RBC at the bottom of 4 mm there was a measurable delay of 0.1 to 2.9 s before polymerization started. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Exposure reciprocity depends on the RBC. Short exposures (3 s) using higher irradiance should only be used when recommended by the manufacturer of the RBC.
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 | 0.000 | 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".