The block numerical range of analytic operator functions

We introduce the block numerical range Wn(L) of an operator function L with respect to a decomposition H = H1⊕. . .⊕Hn of the underlying Hilbert space. Our main results include the spectral inclusion property and estimates of the norm of the resolvent for analytic L . They generalise, and improve, the corresponding results for the numerical range (which is the case n = 1) since the block numerical range is contained in, and may be much smaller than, the usual numerical range. We show that refinements of the decomposition entail inclusions between the corresponding block numerical ranges and that the block numerical range of the operator matrix function L contains those of its principal subminors. For the special case of operator polynomials, we investigate the boundedness of Wn(L) and we prove a Perron-Frobenius type result for the block numerical radius of monic operator polynomials with coefficients that are positive in Hilbert lattice sense.

Operator variability using different polishing methods and surface geometry of a nanohybrid composite

This study evaluated the operator variability of different finishing and polishing techniques. After placing 120 composite restorations (Tetric EvoCeram) in plexiglassmolds, the surface of the specimens was roughened in a standardized manner. Twelve operators with different experience levels polished the specimens using the following finishing/polishing procedures: method 1 (40 ?m diamond [40D], 15 ?m diamond [15D], 42 ?m silicon carbide polisher [42S], 6 ?m silicon carbide polisher [6S] and Occlubrush [O]); method 2 (40D, 42S, 6S and O); method 3 (40D, 42S, 6S and PoGo); method 4 (40D, 42S and PoGo) and method 5 (40D, 42S and O). The mean surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a profilometer. Differences between the methods were analyzed with non-parametric ANOVA and pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank tests (?=0.05). All the restorations were qualitatively assessed using SEM. Methods 3 and 4 showed the best polishing results and method 5 demonstrated the poorest. Method 5 was also most dependent on the skills of the operator. Except for method 5, all of the tested procedures reached a clinically acceptable surface polish of Ra?0.2 ?m. Polishing procedures can be simplified without increasing variability between operators and without jeopardizing polishing results.