Retreatment efficacy of the Epiphany soft resin obturation system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the efficacy of retreatment of canals filled with the Epiphany System with and without solvent, with particular reference to the extent of canal enlargement during retreatment. METHODOLOGY: Sixty roots with canals prepared to apical size 45 were embedded in resin blocks and sectioned vertically. Digital micrographs of canal walls were captured. Roots were re-assembled and filled with Epiphany/Resilon (experimental) or gutta-percha/AH Plus (control). After 8 weeks, canals were retreated to size 45 with or without chloroform, and the time recorded. Roots were split, imaged, re-assembled, retreated to size 55, split and imaged. Root-filling residue, traced at three canal levels, was expressed as percentage of canal surface. RESULTS: Residue percentage was greater (t-test, P < 0.01) in the experimental group than in the control. Most residue in all specimens was in the apical third (ANOVA, P < 0.01). Chloroform and enlargement to size 55 decreased residue in both groups (t-test, P < 0.01). Retreatment time was longer in the experimental group (P < 0.05), and reduced by chloroform in both groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Epiphany System was retreatable with and without chloroform, with lesser efficacy than gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".