Accuracy of the TCM Endo III Torque-Control Motor for Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the torque output and examine the accuracy of five TCM Endo III torque control motors. A handpiece was attached to the motor and gripped with a vise. A 0.07 taper Orifice Shaper, size 50, was inserted in the handpiece. The instrument tip was clamped in a chuck connected to a torque sensor. Four torque settings were evaluated at 350 rpm. Ten tests were performed at each torque setting. A new instrument was used for each test. The means of the torque values generated by the motors at the different torque levels were analyzed using analysis of variance and post-hoc pairwise comparisons with the Bonferroni test. The actual torque values were significantly higher than the torque preset on the motor (p < 0.0001) and did not differ significantly among the motors (p > 0.05). The actual torque deviated from the preset torque. The usefulness of these motors is questionable. The purpose of this study was to determine the torque output and examine the accuracy of five TCM Endo III torque control motors. A handpiece was attached to the motor and gripped with a vise. A 0.07 taper Orifice Shaper, size 50, was inserted in the handpiece. The instrument tip was clamped in a chuck connected to a torque sensor. Four torque settings were evaluated at 350 rpm. Ten tests were performed at each torque setting. A new instrument was used for each test. The means of the torque values generated by the motors at the different torque levels were analyzed using analysis of variance and post-hoc pairwise comparisons with the Bonferroni test. The actual torque values were significantly higher than the torque preset on the motor (p < 0.0001) and did not differ significantly among the motors (p > 0.05). The actual torque deviated from the preset torque. The usefulness of these motors is questionable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".