Comparison of the Efficacies of Debris Removal With Four Different Irrigation Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In this study, we compared the effectiveness of debris removal among the EndoVac (EV), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), self-adjusting file (SAF) and needle irrigation (NI) techniques. Methods: Forty-two single-canal teeth were divided into four groups of 10 teeth each and two controls. The experimental groups were NI, SAF, PUI and EV. After irrigation protocols, the teeth were sectioned at 1 and 3 mm from the apex using a precision saw. The specimens were observed under stereomicroscope at × 128 magnification and digitally photographed. The amount of remaining debris was calculated as a percentage of the canal lumen area. Results: The amounts of debris remaining at 1 mm in NI, SAF, PUI and EV groups were 18.11%, 7.12%, 12.71% and 4.42%, respectively. The amounts of debris at 3 mm in NI, SAF, PUI and EV groups were 9.61%, 5.22%, 8.42% and 2.61% respectively. The amount of debris in the EV group was significantly lower than the other groups (P < 0.01). The amount of debris at 3 mm was significantly lower than at 1 mm (P < 0.01). Conclusion: EV irrigation resulted in significantly less debris at both 1 and 3 mm from the apex compared with the other irrigation techniques. J Curr Surg. 2014;4(3):70-75 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs242e
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".