Comparison of dentine removal using V‐taper and K‐Flexofile instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the dentine removal ability of V-Taper and K-Flexofile instruments in mesiobuccal canals of extracted mandibular first molar teeth. METHODOLOGY: Preoperative images of 40 mesiobuccal canals of mandibular first molars (with a curvature between 20° and 35°) were obtained at 2, 4.5, and 7 mm from the root apices by CT-scan and divided into two groups. Group F was prepared with K-Flexofiles and Gates Glidden drills and Group V with V-Taper Ni-Ti rotary and stainless steel hand instruments. Post-instrumentation images were then obtained and compared with the preoperative images. The ratio of dentine removal based on pre- and postoperative images was calculated, and data was analysed by anova and Tukey post hoc test. RESULTS: In group F in the coronal sections, the least ratio of the dentine removal to the initial root thickness was on the buccal aspect (15.14% ± 6.72), and the greatest ratio was found on the distolingual (29.38% ± 8.19). In group V in the coronal, the least ratio of the dentine removal to the initial root thickness was on the buccal aspect (9.81% ± 3.26); the greatest ratio was found on the distolingual surface in the coronal sections (34.38% ± 10.51). In the middle sections, the least ratio was on the buccal (10.51% ± 3.39) and the greatest on the distolingual aspects (27.46% ± 12.34) of the roots. In the apical sections, the amount of the dentine removed from the mesial and distal surfaces in group V was significantly more than group F (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The distolingual aspect of the root canal is a danger zone for the mesiobuccal canal of the mesial root in mandibular molar teeth, and preparation of that area should be performed with caution. Except the apical part of the canal, no significant difference was found between the two preparation files or techniques used. Apart from the apical part of the canal, neither instrument maintained the original shape of the coronal and middle parts of the canal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".