Behaviour Of Hero NiTi Instruments Used By An Experienced Operator Under Access Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the failure incidence of Hero 642 nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments (HRI) when used by an experienced operator in conjunction with different motors and under limitations of access. HRI were used by an experienced operator in a crown-down technique. The teeth were mounted in resin arches of a phantom head to reproduce limitations of access. In Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, air, high torque control, low torque control and very low torque control motors were used respectively. Each group included 30 canals in extracted human molars. One set of HRI was used for each canal; the HRI were sterilised before each case. A 2.5% NaOCl solution was used as an irrigant. An experienced operator performed all the cleaning and shaping procedures after application of a rubber dam. The opening of the mouth in the phantom head was standardised for the four groups. Instrument fracture did not occur in any of the groups. The air, high torque control and low torque control motors were as safe as the very low torque control motor when HRI were used by an experienced operator in a crown-down manner at 300 rpm.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".