MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator proficiency on failure of Greater Taper files

2002· article· en· W2011509627 on OpenAlex
Ghassan Yared, Fadia E. Bou Dagher, Pierre Machtou, G. K. Kulkarni

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotational speedStatistical analysisMathematicsPairwise comparisonTorqueStatistical significanceOrthodonticsStatisticsMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of rotational speed. torque, and operator experience on the incidence of locking, deformation, and separation of instruments when using a specific Ni-Ti rotary instrumentation technique in extracted human teeth. METHODOLOGY: Greater Taper Ni-Ti rotary instruments (GT) were used in a crown-down technique. In one group (rotational speed evaluation) of canals (n = 300) speeds of 150, 2 50 and 350 r.p.m. (subgroups 1, 2 and 3) were used. Each one of the subgroups included 100 canals. In a second group (evaluation of torque) (n = 300) torque was set at 20, 30 and 55 Ncm (subgroups 4, 5 and 6). In the third group (evaluation of operator proficiency) (n = 300 three operators with varying experience (subgroups 7, 8 and 9) were also compared. Each subgroup included the use of 10 sets of GT rotary instruments and 100 canals of extracted human molars. Each set of instruments was used in up to 10 canals and sterilized before each case. NaOCl 2.5% was used as an irrigant. The number of locked, deformed, and separated instruments was recorded for each group. Statistical analysis was carried out with pairwise comparisons using Fisher's exact tests for each of the failure type. RESULTS: When the influence of rotational speed was evaluated, instrument deformation and separation did not occur in subgroups 1 (150) r.p.m.), 2 (250 r.p.m.), and 3 (350) r.p.m.). Instrument locking occurred in subgroup 3 only. Statistical analysis demonstrated a significant difference between the 150 and 350 r.p.m. groups and between the 250 and 350 r.p.m. groups with respect to instrument locking. In torque evaluation, neither separation, deformation nor locking occurred during the use of the instruments, at 150 r.p.m., and at the different torque values. When the operators were compared, although two instruments were separated in canals prepared by the least experienced operator. Fisher's exact tests did not demonstrate a significant difference between the three subgroups. Instrument locking, deformation, and separation did not occur with the most experienced operator. None of the instruments separated with the trained operator. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical training in the use of the GT rotary instruments when used with a crown-down technique at 150 r.p.m. was crucial in avoiding instrument separation and reducing the incidence of instrument locking and deformation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it