Coronal and apical leakage analysis of two different root canal obturation systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the coronal and apical leakage of AH Plus with gutta-percha to that of Epiphany with Resilon. Twenty-four single rooted teeth were instrumented and divided into 2 groups according to the solutions for smear layer removal and the obturation materials employed: Group A - 17% EDTA-T and AH Plus with gutta-percha; Group B - primer and Epiphany with Resilon. The Group B specimens were light-cured in the coronal area for 20 s. The external root surfaces were covered with a double layer of ethyl cyanoacrylate, except for the apical foramen and the cavity access. The teeth were immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 48 h. The specimens were rinsed, dried and axially split for dye penetration measurement with the ImageLab 2.3 software. The t-test showed no significant differences for coronal leakage between the groups, but there were significant differences for apical leakage between the groups (P < 0.05). AH Plus with gutta-percha and Epiphany with Resilon provided the same coronal seal, whereas Epiphany with Resilon provided the best apical seal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".