Effect of thickness and surface finish on light transmission through zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and lithium disilicate dental ceramics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the influence of thickness and surface finish on the light transmission of specific wavelengths of light through ceramics. Blocks of a zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Celtra Duo, Dentsply Sirona) and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) were sectioned into slices (0.25 - 3.30 mm thick) and prepared following their manufacturers' instructions. The surface gloss and light transmission through the Celtra Duo were measured: first without treatment, then after polishing, after polishing with diamond paste, and finally after glazing. Transmission through e.max was measured only after glazing. The % transmission and light attenuation coefficients were measured through each thickness at: 396, 406, 447, 454, 465, and 476 nm using a spectrometer. The beam profiles were measured and qualitatively analyzed. Data were subjected to 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). Only 6% of the light at 396 nm and 21 to 26% at 476 nm passed through 1.5 mm of both ceramics. Almost none of the violet light and only 6% and 9% of the blue light could be detected through 3.0 mm of each ceramic. At the longer wavelengths, more light was transmitted through Celtra Duo. When glazed, Celtra Duo had higher surface gloss compared to e.max. As the ceramic thickness increased, there was a logarithmic decrease in light transmission. The violet light was more attenuated than the blue light. No correlation was found between the surface gloss and the amount of light transmitted, irrespective of the glass ceramic type.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".