A micro‐computed tomography evaluation of long‐oval canal preparation using reciprocating or rotary systems
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: To evaluate, using micro-computed tomography, the preparation of long-oval root canals using a single reciprocating system versus a multiple-file rotary system. METHODOLOGY: Distal canals of thirty mandibular molars were selected and randomly assigned to one of two instrument groups (n = 15): Reciproc 40 (VDW, Munich, Germany) or BioRaCe system (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland). The teeth were scanned before and after preparation of the canal by a SkyScan 1172 micro-computed tomography scanner at 11-μm resolution. Morphometric variations were measured by volume increases and by the remaining untreated canal surface area in the entire canal and as well as in each third of the canal. Data were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: The Reciproc system left significantly more areas untouched (P < 0.001) in the cervical and middle thirds (18.14% and 21.82%) as compared to BioRaCe (8.14% and 11.35%). The Reciproc system had the greatest increase in volume of both the entire canal and the apical third (P < 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Neither technique was able to completely prepare the outline of long-oval canals. The Reciproc system removed more tooth structure. The BioRaCe left fewer untouched dentine walls in the more coronal thirds of the canal, whilst Reciproc left fewer in the apical third.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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