Retrospective record review: reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol pulpotomy: a retrospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate pulpotomies completed without the use of a fixative, preservative, or astringent agent prior to placement of a reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) sub-base in the pulp chamber and subsequent restoration. METHODS: Clinical and radiographic data were collected from a private pediatric dental office in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The pulpotomy technique used involved: amputation of coronal pulp; radicular hemostasis via pressure with dry cotton pellet; placement of ZOE into the pulp chamber; and restoration with stainless steel crown or amalgam. RESULTS: One-hundred-ninety primary molars in 116 children (follow-up=6-94 months; mean=35.8 months) met the inclusion criteria. The radiographic, clinical, and overall success rates were approximately 95%, 97%, and 94%, respectively. The most frequently observed pathologic pulpal response was furcation radiolucency (N=7, ∼4%). The patient's age at time of pulpotomy, restoration type, tooth type, arch, and location of treatment (in-office vs general anesthesia) were not statistically significant factors influencing the success of the reinforced ZOE pulpotomy technique. CONCLUSION: The success rates indicate that the reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol pulpotomy technique may be an acceptable treatment modality for primary molars requiring vital pulp therapy.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".