Gingival Microleakage of Class V Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effect on microleakage of different bonding agents and glass and polyethylene fibers inserted at gingival margins of class V composite restorations. Sixty premolars were sterilized. Class V cavities were prepared, 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Prepared tooth were randomly divided into 12 groups (n=10). In experimental groups fiber inserts were inserted at the gingival seat. The control groups had no inserts. Restorations were incrementally placed and polymerized. Specimens were then stored in water and thermocycled for 500 cycles, then immersed in 2% procion dye and sectioned buccolingually, then dye penetration was assessed. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and analysis of variance of ranks. No significant differences were found among the types of fiber or the two types of composites. Significant differences were found between the bonding agents. SE and LS show significantly lower microleakage than NT in class V composite restorations in dentin.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".