Failure of ProFile instruments used with high and low torque motors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the failure incidence of ProFile nickel-titanium rotary instruments when used in conjunction with different motors and a specific instrumentation technique. METHODOLOGY: ProFile Ni-Ti rotary instruments (PRI) with 0.06 taper were used in a crown-down technique. In groups 1, 2 and 3, an air, a high torque and a low torque motor were used, respectively. Each group included 30 canals in extracted human molars. One set of PRI sizes 40-15 was used for each canal; they were sterilized before each case. A 2.5% NaOCl solution was used as an irrigant. The number of deformed and separated instruments was recorded for the various experimental groups. RESULTS: Instrument separation did not occur in any of the three groups. One and two instruments were deformed when using the air and high torque motors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated no difference between the three motors with respect to the incidence of instrument failure. The results suggest that the use of PRI in a crown-down manner with air control motors was safe.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 it