Microscopic appearance and apical seal of root canals filled with gutta‐percha and ProRoot Endo Sealer after immersion in a phosphate‐containing fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the sealing quality of ProRoot Endo Sealer, a calcium silicate-based sealer and its morphologic characteristics after immersion in a phosphate-containing fluid (PCF). METHODOLOGY: Single-rooted canals were filled with gutta-percha and either ProRoot Endo Sealer or two commercially available zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE)-based and epoxy resin-based sealers. The sealers were allowed to set for 6 days and the filled teeth were immersed in PCF for 24 h before fluid leakage evaluation. After initial leakage evaluation at the 7th day, each filled root was restored and reimmersed in PCF for 28 days before the second phase of leakage evaluation at 35 days. Cryofractured specimens of additional teeth filled with the three sealers were examined using scanning electron microscopy after immersion in PCF for the two periods. RESULTS: One-way repeated measures anova and Tukey test revealed significant differences between the ZOE-based sealer at 35 days and the calcium silicate-based sealer at 35 days (P < 0.001), and between the ZOE-based sealer at 7 days and the calcium silicate-based sealer at 35 days (P = 0.001). No difference was found between the epoxy resin-based sealer and the calcium silicate-based sealer after both storage periods. Cryofractured calcium silicate-based sealer specimens demonstrated apatite-like crystalline deposits along the apical and middle thirds of the canal walls via transformation from amorphous calcium phosphate-like precursors. CONCLUSIONS: ProRoot Endo Sealer is comparable in sealing quality to the epoxy resin-based sealer and seals better than the ZOE-based sealer after immersion in PCF. The calcium silicate-based sealer also demonstrates ex vivo bioactivity when it comes into contact with phosphate ions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".