Suboptimal push‐out bond strengths of calcium silicate‐based sealers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate and compare the push-out bond strength of MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil) and iRoot SP (Innovative BioCeramix Inc., Vancouver, Canada) to the dentine walls of root canals. AH Plus (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstaz, Germany) and MTA (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil) were used as reference materials. METHODOLOGY: Sixty extracted human single-rooted teeth were selected. After standardized canal preparation and irrigation, the canals were dried with paper points and filled with one of four sealers: AH Plus, iRoot SP, MTA and MTA Fillapex. Roots were sectioned, and push-out tests were performed. The values of bond strength were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Mann-Whitney with Bonferroni correction was used to isolate the differences. The alpha-type error was set at 0.05 for the analyses. RESULTS: All specimens had measurable adhesion to root dentine and no premature failure occurred. There were significant differences amongst materials (P = 0.000). MTA-filled specimens had higher push-out bond strength values (P = 0.000). AH Plus had significantly higher bond strength than both Fillapex and iRoot SP (P = 0.000). Both Fillapex and iRoot SP had the lowest push-out bond strength amongst all experimental groups (P = 0.000). No difference occurred between the two calcium silicate-based root canal sealers (P = 0.265). CONCLUSION: The adhesion to root dentine associated with newer calcium silicate-based sealers was compromised even when well-monitored laboratory conditions were used.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".