Fracture resistance of immature teeth filled with mineral trioxide aggregate, bioaggregate, and biodentine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate fracture resistance of teeth with immature apices treated with coronal placement of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), bioaggregate (BA), and Biodentine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one freshly extracted, single-rooted human premolar teeth were used for the study. At first, the root length was standardized to 9 mm. The crown-down technique was used for the preparation of the root canals using the rotary ProTaper system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) of F3 (30). Peeso reamer no. 6 was stepped out from the apex to simulate an incompletely formed root. The prepared roots were randomly assigned to one control (n = 5) and three experimental (n = 12) groups, as described below. Group 1: White MTA (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil) was prepared as per the manufacturer's instructions and compacted into the root canal using MAP system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and condensed by pluggers (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil). Group 2: The canals were filled with DiaRoot-BA (DiaDent Group International, Canada). Group 3: Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France) solution was mixed with the capsule powder and condensed using pluggers. Instron was used to determine the maximum horizontal load to fracture the tooth, placing the tip 3 mm incisal to the cementoenamel junction. Mean values of the fracture strength were compared by ANOVA followed by a post hoc test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed among the MTA, BA, and biodentine experimental groups. CONCLUSION: All the three materials tested, may be used as effective strengthening agents for immature teeth.
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) | 0.000 | 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".