Lack of correlation between obturation limits and apical leakage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to evaluate a possible correlation between obturation limits and leakage. Thirty-six extracted human mandibular incisors were used, characterized by straight and single canals, non-anatomical complexities, absence of previous endodontic treatment, complete root formation and patent foramen. For standardization of the specimens for the leakage analysis, foraminal instrumentation was performed up to a Flexofile #25 (Dentsply-Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). All specimens were instrumented and filled following the same protocol, and the obturation limits were measured using Axiovision 4.5 Software (Carl Zeiss Vision, Hallbergmoos, Germany). The specimens were then separated into three groups (n=12) according to the following variables: Group I--obturation limits ranging from 0 mm to 0.76 mm of the main apical foramen. Group II--obturation limits ranging from 0.77 mm to 0.98 mm of the main apical foramen. Group III--obturation limits ranging from 0.99 mm to 1.68 mm of the main apical foramen. Apical leakage was quantified by fluid filtration. The analyses were confronted using Pearson's test (p>0.05). Groups I, II and III showed Pearson correlation values (r2) of -0.152, -0.186 and 0.058, respectively. No correlation was found between the obturation limits and apical leakage.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".