In vitro performance of violet LED and argon plasma with oxygen on dentin bleaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of violet LED and argon plasma, associated or not with oxygen, on chromatic alteration, whitening index, temperature variation, wettability, surface energy, total free interaction energy, and adhesive strength in dentin tissue. Thus, 100 bovine dentin discs were allocated to 5 groups (n=20): C - control; APL - argon plasma; APL+O - argon plasma + 3% oxygen; LED - violet LED; HP - 35% hydrogen peroxide. In the first bleaching treatment for each technique, chromatic alteration (ΔE00), bleaching index (ΔWID), and temperature variation were analyzed. Subsequently, the specimens were repolished, receiving the surface treatments again and designated for contact angle (o), surface energy (γs), and total free interaction energy (ΔG) analyses (n=5). In contrast, the remaining specimens were restored for bond strength analysis (n=15). From each specimen, four beams were obtained, two evaluated immediately and two after 10,000 thermal cycles. Bond strength data were subjected to 2-way repeated measures ANOVA, and the other analyses to 1-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test (α=0.05). APL+O presented bleaching efficacy similar to the HP group, which, in turn, had the lowest bond strength values (p<0.05). LED was the only treatment that generated a temperature increase and showed a hydrophobic surface. APL+O presented lower contact angle values and higher ΔG values. APL and APL+O showed bond strength values that surpassed only those of the control group. It was concluded that plasma treatments were effective in dentin bleaching; however, none of the evaluated therapies managed to prevent the loss of bond strength.
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".