Influence of Root Posts and Retained Coronal Dentin on Fracture Resistance and Failure Pattern of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Incisors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The contribution of cast metal and prefabricated fiber posts and that of retained coronal dentin to fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated maxillary incisors was evaluated. Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted maxillary incisors were endodontically treated, prepared with full shoulder, and divided into six groups of 10 each. A 2 mm high axial circumferential wall of coronal dentin was left in teeth of three groups, but removed in teeth of the other groups. Post space was prepared in 40 teeth: 20 of them received cast gold posts (10 with axial ring and 10 without) and likewise the other 20 teeth received quartz fiber posts . A 2 x 3 mm “well” was prepared as core foundation in the remaining 20 teeth. All teeth were restored with metal crowns. Tooth fracture strength was measured in compression at 135 o to its long axis until failure. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey’s tests . Mode of failure data were analyzed using Chi-square test. Results: Root posts had no significant influence on the fracture resistance (P > 0.01). Metal posts caused root fractures whereas failures of fiber post restored teeth were predominantly reparable. Conclusions: Root posts did not enhance fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary incisors. Tooth resistance to fracture was made up by the ferrule effect afforded by the bracing of full crown against the retained coronal structures. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jcs204e
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".