Treatment Outcome in Endodontics: The Toronto Study. Phases I and II: Orthograde Retreatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcome 4-6 years after retreatment was assessed for Phases 3 and 4 of the Toronto Study. Of 477 teeth retreated, 333 were lost to follow-up, 18 were extracted, and 126 (41% recall, excluding 124 discontinuers) were examined for outcome of healed (periapical index score, < or = 2; no signs or symptoms) or diseased. When pooled with Phases 1 and 2, 187 of 229 teeth (82%) were healed. Logistic regression identified significant (P < or = .05) preoperative outcome predictors: root filling quality (odds ratio [OR], 4.18; confidence interval [CI], 1.72-10.12; healed: inadequate, 88%; adequate, 66%), perforation (OR, 4.01; CI, 1.28-12.62; healed: absent, 87%; present, 56%), and radiolucency (OR, 3.33; CI, 1.19-9.36; healed: absent, 93%; present, 80%). In teeth with radiolucency, outcome predictors were number of treatment sessions (OR, 12.08; CI, 1.84-infinity; healed: one, 100%; > or = 2, 77%) and previous root filling quality (OR, 7.68; CI, 2.36-26.89; healed: inadequate, 86%; adequate, 50%). Outcome was better in teeth with inadequate previous root filling, without perforation and radiolucency. Suggested significance of number of treatment sessions in teeth with radiolucency requires validation from randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".