MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595772728

Evaluation of cleaning efficacy of a nickel-titanium rotary system, with or without 17% EDTA passive ultrasonic activation: a scanning electron microscopic study

2012· article· en· W1595772728 on OpenAlexaff
Antônio Henrique Braitt, Rodrigo Sanches Cunha, Alexandre Sigrist De Martin, Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Bueno

Bibliographic record

VenueRedalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonic sensorMetallurgyNickelScanning electron microscopeMaterials scienceNickel titaniumTitaniumBiomedical engineeringComposite materialAcousticsMedicineShape-memory alloyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Introduction: The goal of endodontic instrumentation is to promote root canal cleaning and shaping to prepare it for the subsequent three-dimensional filling. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate, ex vivo, root canal cleaning ability executed by nickel-titanium rotary system instrumentation and this same system plus ultrasound passive activation of 17% EDTA, through SEM. Material and methods: Seventy upper second single-rooted human bicuspids were used. All teeth presented a single root canal, flattened towards buccal-palatal direction. The teeth were randomly separated into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 30), had the canals instrumented by using the original operative sequence of ProTaper Universal System, up to instrument #F3. In this group, 5 ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite was employed as irrigant, every each instrument change. After group 1 instrumentation, root canals were irrigated with 5 ml of 17% EDTA, which was kept inside the canal for 3 minutes. Next, a final irrigation with 5 ml of 5.25% NaOCl was performed to remove the smear layer in suspension. Group 2 (n = 30) had the canals instrumented by the same system and up to the same instrument size. It was used 5.0 ml of 5.25% NaOCl as irrigant substance every each instrument change. In group 2, however, 17% EDTA (5 ml) was applied through ultrasonic passive activation for 1 minute, and then leaving the substance for 2 minutes within root canal. A final irrigation and with 5.25% NaOCl was also performed. Group 3 (n = 10) was the control group, where the canals were not instrumented and irrigation was executed with saline solution. After that, the teeth were cut into their long axis, metalized and taken for SEM analysis, at x2000 magnification. Each tooth’s cervical, middle and apical thirds were observed. The cleaning quality of root canal’s walls was observed by the images analyzed by three examiners. Results: Data were statistically analysed by analysis of variance and Tukey test, with a significance level of 5%. The control group showed an average score of the presence of smear layer of 3.41; group 1 (ProTaper) of 2.34; and the group 2 (ProTaper+Ultrassound) of 0.60. Conclusion: None of the studied preparation techniques promoted the total cleaning of the root canal walls. The addition of the ultrasound passive activation, after rotary instrumentation, promoted an increase of the smear layer removal, improving the cleaning of root canal wall. The apical third obtained the smallest cleaning rate, regardless of the technique employed."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRedalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México)Same topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207