Failure of ProFile instruments used with high and low torque motors
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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".