Fracture resistance of simulated immature tooth roots reinforced with <scp>MTA</scp> or restorative materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Immature endodontically treated teeth may require reinforcing to reduce the risk of root fracture. This study assessed the fracture resistance of simulated immature tooth roots reinforced with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or two composite resin (CR) materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred extracted roots of mature human maxillary incisors were decoronated and sectioned 9 mm further apically from the decoronation line and randomly divided into five groups (n = 20). In Group 1 (negative control), roots received no treatment. In groups 2-5, canals were enlarged to 2.1 mm diameter to simulate immature roots, dressed with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2 ) and incubated for 7 days. After removal of Ca(OH)2 , canals in Group 2 (positive control) were left unfilled. Canals in groups 3, 4 and 5 were filled with MTA, BisFil 2B flowable CR or BisFil II posterior CR, respectively. After further incubation for 30 days, specimens were embedded in acrylic cylinders and horizontally loaded in a universal testing machine at cross head speed of 5 mm min(-1) until fracture occurred. Load (N) at and pattern of fracture were recorded. RESULTS: Load at fracture was significantly lower (t-test, P = 0.003) in Group 2 (630 ± 199.12) than in Group 1 (896.98 ± 311.79). It did not differ significantly among groups 1, 3, 4 and 5 (anova, P > 0.07). Pattern of fracture did not differ among the groups either. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, root canal filling with MTA and two CR materials affected reinforcement of simulated immature roots to levels comparable with intact roots.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".