MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109025019 · doi:10.1111/aej.12103

Remaining root dentin thickness in mesiobuccal canals of maxillary first molars after attempted removal of broken instrument fragments

2015· article· en· W2109025019 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan Gao, Ya Shen, Xuedong Zhou, Markus Haapasalo

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Endodontic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMolarCoronal planeDentinMaterials scienceRoot canalTrephineBody orificeOrthodonticsDentistryGeologyComposite materialAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim was to measure the minimal thickness of the remaining canal wall dentine in the mesiobuccal roots of maxillary first molars using a virtual model to simulate the attempt to remove fractured instruments. Thirty-seven molars were scanned by micro-computed tomography. The application framework for the simulation of the attempt to remove a broken instrument was constructed. The staging platform was created and followed by the use of ultrasonic tips to trephine dentine around the fragment to reveal the coronal 1.5 mm. The minimum canal wall thickness in the mesiobuccal roots was then measured. The concavity groove was found on all the distal aspects of the mesiobuccal root. The minimum thickness of the remaining canal wall distally to the canal was significantly thinner than mesially to the canals when sizes 25/0.06 and 25/0.02 instruments were broken at 3 and 5 mm away from the canal orifice. When the sizes 20/0.02 and 25/0.06 instruments were broken at 5 mm away from the canal orifice, the minimum thickness of the distal dentine wall was only 300-400 μm which was significantly less than when the instrument was broken at 3 mm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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