Analysis of the effect of ultrasonic agitation on the cleaning of root canals using different periods during the final irrigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ultrasonic agitation was introduced as an adjuvant to conventional chemo-mechanical debridement during endodontic treatment to overcome the persistence of biofilms. Objective: To verify the cleaning of root canals irrigated with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), with or without an ultrasonic agitation, using different time periods and images obtained by scanning electron microscope (SEM). Material and methods: Forty mandibular incisors were cleaned, shaped and randomly divided into five groups according to the final irrigation protocol: SH10 group (ultrasonic agitation with NaOCl for 10 s), SH30 group (ultrasonic agitation with NaOCl for 30 s), SHE30 group (ultrasonic agitation with NaOCl and EDTA for 10 s), SHE90 group (ultrasonic agitation with NaOCl and EDTA for 30 s), and control group (NaOCl and EDTA without ultrasonic agitation). The teeth were prepared and analyzed by SEM at ×2000. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used with a 5% level of significance. Results: For the cervical and medial thirds, there was no statistically significant difference in cleaning among the protocols used (p > 0.05). For the cleaning of the apical third, SHE90 group demonstrated a significant difference (p < 0.05), as compared to the control and SH10 groups. Conclusion: For the final irrigation, an ultrasonic agitation with NaOCl and EDTA for 30 s allowed a better cleaning of the debris in the apical third of the root 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".