MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment Outcome in Endodontics: The Toronto Study. Phases I and II: Orthograde Retreatment

2004· article· en· W2136409264 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endodontics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerforationDentistryPeriodontitisOdds ratioEndodonticsLogistic regressionRoot canalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 4- to 6-year outcome of orthograde retreatment was assessed for Phases I and II of the Toronto Study. In total, 523 teeth in 444 patients were retreated. With 395 teeth lost to follow-up and 25 extracted, 103 teeth (34% recall) were examined by two independent, blinded, calibrated examiners for outcome: “healed” (absence of apical periodontitis, signs, or symptoms) or “diseased” (presence of apical periodontitis, signs, or symptoms). The “healed” rate (81%) differed significantly for preoperative apical periodontitis (absent, 97%; present, 78%) and perforation (absent, 89%; present, 42%). Logistic regression revealed an increased risk of disease for preoperative perforation and adequate root filling quality, and postoperative lack of definitive restoration (odds ratios = 26.5, 6.6, and 14.0, respectively). Without perforation, inadequate intraoperative root filling length was also identified (odds ratio = 6.8). This study suggested that apical periodontitis, although a strong predictor, was secondary to preoperative perforation and root filling quality, and to postoperative restoration, in predicting the outcome of retreatment. The 4- to 6-year outcome of orthograde retreatment was assessed for Phases I and II of the Toronto Study. In total, 523 teeth in 444 patients were retreated. With 395 teeth lost to follow-up and 25 extracted, 103 teeth (34% recall) were examined by two independent, blinded, calibrated examiners for outcome: “healed” (absence of apical periodontitis, signs, or symptoms) or “diseased” (presence of apical periodontitis, signs, or symptoms). The “healed” rate (81%) differed significantly for preoperative apical periodontitis (absent, 97%; present, 78%) and perforation (absent, 89%; present, 42%). Logistic regression revealed an increased risk of disease for preoperative perforation and adequate root filling quality, and postoperative lack of definitive restoration (odds ratios = 26.5, 6.6, and 14.0, respectively). Without perforation, inadequate intraoperative root filling length was also identified (odds ratio = 6.8). This study suggested that apical periodontitis, although a strong predictor, was secondary to preoperative perforation and root filling quality, and to postoperative restoration, in predicting the outcome of retreatment.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.297 · 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