Comparing gray mineral trioxide aggregate and diluted formocresol in pulpotomized human primary molars.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this multisite, multioperator, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 6-month outcomes of diluted formocresol (DFC) compared to gray mineral trioxide aggregate (GMTA) as pulpotomy medicament. METHODS: Determined by a power analysis, 252 molars of 152 children were recruited. The teeth were randomly assigned to receive GMTA or DFC. At the 6-month follow-up, 118 children with 203 treated teeth were evaluated. RESULTS: Four blinded and calibrated evaluators scored each radiograph for pathologies. Clinical success was similar for DFC (97%) and GMTA (100%), (P<.09). Radiographic success differed significantly (P<.04) for DFC (86%) and GMTA (95%). Pulp canal obliteration was radiographically observed in 25% of the DFC group and in 37% of the GMTA group (P=.07). Dentin bridging was observed in 22% of the GMTA group but was not found in the DFC group (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Teeth treated with GMTA showed more favorable radiographic outcomes than DFC at 6 months post-treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".