Location of canal isthmus and accessory canals in the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first permanent molars.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Failure in surgical endodontics may be caused by many factors. Failure is commonly due to improper preparation for the root-end filling and a lack of seal of the resected root end. The aim of this study was to investigate the morphology of resected mesiobuccal (MB) root ends of maxillary first molars and to evaluate the location of the canal isthmus and accessory canals between the MB canals. METHODS: From 50 selected first permanent molars, sections of the MB root at 3, 4 and 5 mm from the apex were prepared, acid-etched, washed and dried. The apical side of each section was sputter-coated with gold, examined by a scanning electron microscope and photographed. RESULTS: Overall, 18 (36%) of the 50 MB roots had one canal, whereas 32 (64%) had 2 canals. Of the roots with 2 canals, 10 (31.25%) contained either a complete isthmus or accessory canals or both between the 2 main canals. Another 10 (31.25%) showed partial isthmus formation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: MB roots exhibit a variety of canal configurations. On the basis of these findings, we propose a classification of the resected root surface of the MB root. Prudent judgement in preparing the canal isthmus, meticulous skill and comprehensive knowledge of root canal anatomy are essential for successful treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".