MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184603200

Management of an Immature Tooth Using MTA and Composite Canal Reinforcement

2015· article· en· W2184603200 on OpenAlex
Ganesh Jadhav, Priya Mittal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Oral Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot canalDentistryGlass ionomer cementDebridement (dental)EndodonticsMaxillary central incisorOrthodonticsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complete debridement, thorough disinfection and optimal sealing of the root canal system are the major challenges associated with endodontic treatment of teeth with open apices. In such teeth, thin radicular dentinal walls are susceptible to fracture. To ensure a better prognosis in such fractured prone thin dentinal walls, internal radicular reinforcement with various adhesive materials like glass ionomer cement, composites is recommended. A 15-year boy reported to the department with tooth #21showing large periapical radiolucency in association with an immature tooth having flared wide root canal. Here presenting a management of this case using MTA as an apical plug and composite as canal reinforcement material. This case report highlights the use of apical stop and canal reinforcement technique for management of immature teeth with thin radicular walls.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it