Composite bond strength of one and two - step adhesive systems used for restorations on primary teeth using varying acid etch application times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine whether the composite bond strength acquired using a single step self-etching bonding system is as or more effective when compared to the two step etch-rinse-bond system at clinically relevant in-vitro standards. A total of 80 extracted human deciduous with at least one intact smooth surface were collected with parental consent. Collected teeth were randomly assigned to one of four treatment protocols (n=20): single step self-etch (Adper Prompt L-Pop, 3M ESPE), two step etch (15s)-rinse-bond (Optibond Solo Plus, Kerr), single step self etch (Adper L Pop, 3M ESPE) with 30s pre-etch, and two step etch (30s)-rinse-bond (Optibond Solo Plus, Kerr). A composite cylinder of uniform shape was bonded to each tooth using the designated adhesive system and specimens were tested with a universal testing machine. Descriptive statistics and statistical analysis was performed. Median shear bond strengths for all specimens, regardless of treatment group, ranged from 3.25 MPa to 43.13 MPa. These values are above suggested minimum clinical required values of 3MPa. A Kruskal-Wallis analysis between treatment groups found statistical significance (p<0.05) for shear bond strength between the groups and both one step system protocols, had higher mean and median shear bond strength values than the two step systems. An adhesive remnant index (ARI) was analyzed to confirm uniform adhesive fracture between all four treatment groups. Both a Fisher’s exact test, and a Hantel-Haenszel statistic found no significant difference (p<0.05) between the samples. Based on these findings we concluded that: 1. The ARI score for all treatment groups was not statistically significant, suggesting that the type of bond breakage was consistent regardless of adhesive system used. 2. Both Optibond Solo Plus and Adper Prompt L-Pop systems achieve adequate shear bond strengths as described by current literature. 3. The use of a one-step system to save chair time and aid in patient behavior management may be clinically useful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".