Comparative evaluation of the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape rotary and Wave One reciprocating files
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study compared the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape (Micro Mega) rotary file and Wave One primary reciprocating file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty International Organization for Standardization 15, 0.02 taper, Endo Training Blocks (Dentsply Maillefer) were used. In all specimens working length (WL) was established at the reference point 0. Glide path was achieved with Path-File 1, 2 and 3 (Dentsply Maillefer) at the WL. Group 1 were shaped with One Shape file and group 2 with Wave One files. Pre and post-digital images were superimposed, processed with Corel draw Graphic Suite X5 (Corel Corporation, Ottawa, Canada), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA) and Solid works student Edition software (Dassault Systems Solid Works Corp, S.A., Velizy, France). RESULTS: Mean was more for Wave One compared with One Shape. One-way ANOVA and t-test showed a significant difference between One Shape and Wave One at 5% level of significance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Canals prepared with Wave One file preserved canal shape, respected the anatomical shape of J-shaped canal and produced a continuously tapered funnel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".