MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586597668

In vitro comparison of endodontic posts in structurally compromised roots of maxillary incisors.

2011· article· en· W1586597668 on OpenAlexaff
C Solomon, Y I Osman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Trauma and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost and coreUniversal testing machineMaterials scienceDentistryMaxillary central incisorRoot canalCrown (dentistry)Composite numberGlass fiberOrthodonticsFracture (geology)Core (optical fiber)Composite materialMedicineUltimate tensile strength
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The structurally compromised root remains a restorative challenge to the general dental practitioner. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the fracture resistance of maxillary incisors with structurally compromised root canals, using 4 different post and core systems. A compromised root canal for the purpose of this study is defined as a flared canal resulting from destructive causes such as dental caries, tooth crown fractures, previous failing restorations or endodontic filing procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The crowns of 100 maxillary incisors were sectioned horizontally and 2mm incisally from the cement-enamel junction and randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 25 teeth) as follows: group MC: cast post and core (base metal, Ni-Cr); group GF: glass-fiber post and composite resin core; group CF: carbon fiber post with composite resin core and group Ti: prefabricated parallel-sided titanium post and composite resin core. All specimens were prepared with enlarged and flared root canals, representative of structurally compromised teeth, with composite resin filling the circumferential space between the post and roots of all specimens except the cast post and core. The specimens were subjected to an increasing palatal force at an angle of 130 degrees to the long axis of the tooth until fracture occurred. Loading forces were applied and measured using a universal testing device (model 1446, Zwick, Ulm, Germany). RESULTS: Results showed cast post and cores had significantly higher fracture loads than the resin reinforced groups (P< .05). The difference in fracture resistance between the three resin reinforced groups (fiber posts and titanium posts) was found not to be significant (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary incisors with compromised roots restored with cast posts, had fracture strength values more than twice that of the fiber post groups, but all the fractures resulted in unrestorable roots. With the prefabricated posts where resin filled the space between the post and the flared root walls, 60 to 80% of the failures resulted in non-restorable root fractures. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Within the limitations of this study, cast posts and cores provide the highest fracture resistance but resulted in not restorable fractures. Using the composite resin reinforcement technique to restore flared canals, none of the prefabricated posts used in this study appear to be superior to the others. The final clinical decision when restoring compromised canals should consider all patient-, dental- and material related variables for a more predictable outcome.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental Trauma and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207