MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089003670 · doi:10.1111/iej.12326

Three‐dimensional modelling and concurrent measurements of root anatomy in mandibular first molar mesial roots using micro‐computed tomography

2014· article· en· W2089003670 on OpenAlexaff
J. K. Lee, Yeon‐Jee Yoo, Hiran Perinpanayagam, Byung-Hyun Ha, Sung-Bin Lim, Soram Oh, Yu Gu, Seok Woo Chang, Qiang Zhu, Kee‐Yeon Kum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSeoul National University Dental HospitalSeoul National University Hospital
KeywordsMolarCoronal planeComputed tomographyTomographyMaterials scienceRoot canalMandibular molarOrthodonticsMandibular second molarAnatomyGeologyMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To obtain concurrent radicular measurements in the mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) canals of mandibular first molars using scanned data of micro-computed tomography (μCT) with novel software. METHODOLOGY: The scanned data from 37 mandibular first molar mesial roots were reconstructed and analysed with custom-developed software (Kappa2). For each canal, three-dimensional (3D) surface models were re-sliced at 0.1-mm intervals perpendicular to the central axis. Dentine thicknesses, canal widths and 3D curvatures were measured automatically on each slice. Measurements were analysed statistically with anova for differences at each direction and at different levels of both canals. RESULTS: Lateral dentine thicknesses were significantly higher than mesial and distal thicknesses, at all the levels of both canals (P < 0.001). Mesial thicknesses were significantly higher than distal thicknesses in the coronal third of both canals (P < 0.001). Thinnest dentine thicknesses were mainly located on the disto-inside of both canals. Narrowest canal widths were 0.24 ± 0.10 and 0.22 ± 0.09 mm in MB and ML canals, respectively. Canal curvatures were greatest in the apical third of both canals (P < 0.001), and they were greater in the MB canals than in the ML canals (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Micro-computed tomography with novel software provided valuable anatomical information for optimizing instrumentation and minimizing mishaps in nonsurgical root canal treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Endodontic JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207