MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microscopic appearance and apical seal of root canals filled with gutta‐percha and ProRoot Endo Sealer after immersion in a phosphate‐containing fluid

2008· article· en· W2053715643 on OpenAlex
R. Norman Weller, Kelvin C.-Y. Tay, L. V. Garrett, Sui Mai, Carolyn Primus, James L. Gutmann, D.H. Pashley, Franklin R. Tay

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsMaterials scienceCalcium silicateZinc oxide eugenolRoot canalDentistryEpoxyGutta-perchaScanning electron microscopeImmersion (mathematics)Amorphous calcium phosphateApatiteSimulated body fluidCalciumComposite materialChemistryMineralogyMetallurgyMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it