Comparative Evaluation of Alumina, Hydroxyapatite, and Their Combination for Dental Enamel Cavity Cutting in an Air Abrasion System: An In Vitro <scp>SEM</scp> Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental air abrasion is a minimally invasive technique using abrasive particles to remove carious tooth structure. Alumina particles, commonly preferred due to their cutting efficiency, pose toxicity risks if inhaled. This study evaluated hydroxyapatite (HA) and an alumina + HA combination as alternatives to alumina for enamel cutting efficiency. Extracted human third molars with sound enamel (N = 30) were divided into three groups: (1) alumina 29 μm (control), (2) HA, and (3) alumina + HA. Morphological analysis of powders and cavity cutting performance were assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Alumina particles were coarse and angular, HA particles were rounded, and alumina + HA showed mixed morphology on SEM analysis. Cavity cutting results showed alumina produced the deepest cavities (mean: 2.5 mm), followed by alumina + HA (mean: 2.12 mm) and HA alone (mean: 0.75 mm). Statistically significant differences were detected between alumina and HA (p = 0.0003) and alumina + HA and HA (p = 0.008), but no significant differences between alumina and alumina + HA (p > 0.99) were observed. SEM analysis of the shape of the cavities revealed cylindrical shapes for alumina and alumina + HA groups and conical shapes for the HA group. The alumina + HA combination demonstrated effective enamel cutting efficiency while the presence of HA could be potentially useful for remineralization, presenting a safer alternative to pure alumina. Further in vivo studies are recommended to validate these findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".