Periapical health and treatment quality assessment of root-filled teeth in two Canadian populations
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: The prevalence of apical periodontitis (AP) and the quality of root fillings and restorations were determined in two Canadian populations differing in avail-ability of endodontists. METHODOLOGY: Radiographs of first-time university patients aged 25-40 years in Toronto and Saskatoon were examined for missing teeth, presence and standard of root fillings, standard of restoration, and AP according to the Periapical Index. Patients with root-filled teeth were invited for clinical examination and interview to inspect the restorations, and to reveal the providers of endodontic treatment and reasons for extractions of missing teeth. Chi-square and independent t-tests interpreted at the 5% significance level were used to examine associations between the prevalence of AP in root-filled teeth and the standard of the root filling, restoration, and providers of treatment. RESULTS: Proportion of patients with root-filled teeth was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in Toronto than in Saskatoon (39 and 26%, respectively). Presence of AP about root-filled teeth (44% in Toronto, 51% in Saskatoon) was significantly associated with poor density (OR = 2.7) short (OR = 2.4) and long (OR = 2.8) root fillings, and with poor radiographic quality of the restoration (OR = 1.7) Prevalence of AP did not differ significantly between teeth treated by generalists and endodontists. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AP in root-filled and untreated teeth was comparable to that reported in previous methodologically compatible studies. The quality of both the root filling and the restoration were found to impact on the periapical health of root-filled teeth, with the impact of the restoration being most critical when the quality of the root filling was adequate.
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 | 0.001 | 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