Apical sealing ability of two novel root canal sealers: An ex-vivo study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective was to compare the sealing ability of two root canal sealers viz.: Hybrid Root SEAL (Sun Medical, Tokyo, Japan) and iRoot SP (Innovative BioCeramix Inc., Vancouver, Canada). Materials and Methods: A sample of 60 permanent single rooted, human maxillary central incisors of similar sizes was selected for the study. The teeth were decoronated and randomly divided into two groups viz.: Group A and Group B, comprising of thirty teeth each. In Group A, Hybrid Root SEAL and Group B, iRoot SP were used as root canal sealers along with Gutta-percha cones using lateral condensation technique to obturate the canals. After obturation roots were covered with nail paint except 2.0 mm of root and stored in 0.5% methylene blue dye for 1 week. The teeth were immersed in 10 ml of 65% nitric acid for complete dissolution and subsequently subjected to UV spectrophotometer to quantify the concentration of the dye in each sample. The data were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. Results: The mean dye leakage value in Group B (0.368) was less as compared to Group A (0.408). However, statistically the difference was nonsignificant (P = 0.053). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference among the two groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".