Outcomes of vital primary incisor ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy and primary tooth root canal therapy (RCT) in cariously exposed vital pulps of primary incisors. METHODS: A total of 133 incisors in 50 children were randomly selected to be treated by FS pulpotomy (64) or RCT (69). RESULTS: Two years after treatment, 77 incisors (41 FS pulpotomy, 36 RCT) were available for clinical and radiographic examination. There was no clinical evidence of pathosis in 78% of FS pulpotomy-treated and 100% of RCT-treated incisors. Two independent pediatric dentists evaluated periapical radiographs of the treated incisors. Incisors were classified into 1 of 4 treatment outcomes: N, normal treated incisor; H, nonpathologic radiographic change present; PO, pathologic change present, but not requiring immediate extraction; PX, pathologic change present, extract immediately. Survival analysis was applied. A moderate level of agreement between raters was found for incisors with outcome PX (K = 0.54). Intra-rater reliability was substantial for incisors with outcome PX (K = 0.61). No difference was demonstrated in the proportion of FS pulpotomy- and RCT-treated incisors rated PX at the 2-year recall (x2 = 0.6). RCT incisors demonstrated a significantly higher survival rate than FS pulpotomy incisors at 2 years (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcomes for RCT incisors were not significantly different from FS pulpotomy-treated incisors at 2 years; however, at 2 years the survival rate of RCT incisors was statistically greater than that of FS pulpotomy-treated incisors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".