Taurodontism: a review of the condition and endodontic treatment challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taurodontism can be defined as a change in tooth shape caused by the failure of Hertwig's epithelial sheath diaphragm to invaginate at the proper horizontal level. An enlarged pulp chamber, apical displacement of the pulpal floor, and no constriction at the level of the cementoenamel junction are the characteristic features. Although permanent molar teeth are most commonly affected, this change can also be seen in both the permanent and deciduous dentition, unilaterally or bilaterally, and in any combination of teeth or quadrants. Whilst it appears most frequently as an isolated anomaly, its association with several syndromes and abnormalities has also been reported. The literature on taurodontism in the context of endodontics up to March 2007 was reviewed using PubMed, MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature. Despite the clinical challenges in endodontic therapy, taurodontism has received little attention from clinicians. In performing root canal treatment on such teeth, one should appreciate the complexity of the root canal system, canal obliteration and configuration, and the potential for additional root canal systems. Careful exploration of the grooves between all orifices particularly with magnification, use of ultrasonic irrigation; and a modified filling technique are of particular use.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".