Micro‐computed tomography analysis of post space preparation in root canals filled with carrier‐based thermoplasticized gutta‐percha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether post space preparation deviated from the root canal preparation in canals filled with Thermafil, GuttaCore or warm vertically compacted gutta-percha. METHODOLOGY: Forty-two extracted human permanent maxillary lateral incisors were decoronated, and their root canals instrumented using a standardized protocol. Samples were divided into three groups and filled with Thermafil (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Johnson City, TN, USA), GuttaCore (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties) or warm vertically compacted gutta-percha, before post space preparation was performed with a GT Post drill (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties). Teeth were scanned using micro-computed tomography after root filling and again after post space preparation. Scans were examined for number of samples with post space deviation, linear deviation of post space preparation and minimum root thickness before and after post space preparation. Parametric data were analysed with one-way analysis of variance (anova) or one-tailed paired Student's t-tests, whilst nonparametric data were analysed with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Deviation occurred in eight of forty-two teeth (19%), seven of fourteen from the Thermafil group (50%), one of fourteen from the GuttaCore group (7%), and none from the gutta-percha group. Deviation occurred significantly more often in the Thermafil group than in each of the other two groups (P < 0.05). Linear deviation of post space preparation was greater in the Thermafil group than in both of the other groups and was significantly greater than that of the gutta-percha group (P < 0.05). Minimum root thickness before post space preparation was significantly greater than it was after post space preparation for all groups (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the Thermafil, GuttaCore and gutta-percha groups in the number of samples with post space deviation and in linear deviation of post space preparation were associated with the presence or absence of a carrier as well as the different carrier materials.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".