Comparison between electronic and radiographic method for the determination of root canal length in primary teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few researches in literature that mention the use of the apex locator in deciduous teeth and working length is obtained through radiographies. Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare the radiographic and the electronic method to obtain the working length in deciduous molars. Material andmethods: Twelve molar teeth were used. The specimens in the visual method had their root length measured through the passive insertion of a 10 K-file with a silicone stop within root canal until its tip was seen at the apical foramen. The working length was measured through radiographs or using the apex locator Root ZX II. The mean between the examiners was submitted to the variance analysis (ANOVA). Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the visual method and the radiographic method (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the working length measurements in visual method and those obtained with the apex locator (p = 0.1319). Conclusion: The apex locator is indicated as a clinical implementation for endodontic treatment in primary teeth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".