Long-term outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this outcome study was to compare ferric sulfate pulpotomy (FS) and primary tooth root canal therapy (RCT) on cariously exposed vital pulps of primary molars. METHODS: A total of 291 molars were treated in 130 children--182 molars received FS and 109 received RCT by random selection. RESULTS: At 2-year reassessment, 116 molars (73 FS, 43 RCT) were available for clinical and radiographic examination. There was no clinical evidence of pathosis in 96% of FS and 98% of RCT molars. Two independent pediatric dentists evaluated periapical radiographs of the treated molars. Molars were classified into 1 of 4 outcomes: (1) N--normal treated molar, (2) H--nonpathologic radiographic change present, (3) P(O)--pathologic change present, follow-up in 6 months, and (4) P(X)--pathologic change present, extract immediately. Survival analysis was applied. A good level of agreement between raters was found for molars with outcome P(X) (kappa=0.745). Intrarater reliability was good for molars with outcome P(X) (kappa=0.710). Significantly greater numbers of FS than RCT molars were rated P(X) at the 2-year recall (chi2=5.8; P=.02). No significant difference in survival between the 2 types of vital pulp treatments was detected in log rank tests (P=.22). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for FS were poorer than RCT outcomes at 2 years; however, at 2 years, the survival rates were not statistically different.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".