Mineral trioxide aggregate produces superior outcomes in vital primary molar pulpotomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of vital primary molar pulpotomy when there is no direct contact between eugenol and the vital pulp. Four pulpotomy techniques were compared: (1) ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy; (2) eugenol-free FS pulpotomy; (3) mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy; and (4) FS/MTA pulpotomy. METHODS: The pulpotomy technique assigned to each molar was determined by random selection. Two blinded, disinterested raters classified each molar into 1 of 3 radiographic outcomes: (1) N=normal molar without pathologic change; (2) Po=pathologic change present, follow-up recommended; (3) Px=pathologic change present, extract. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients with 227 pulpotomy-treated molars returned for at least 1 recall examination. Median follow-up for molars was 24 months (range=12-38 months). MTA molars demonstrated significantly fewer Px radiographic outcomes than FS molars (P=.002, chi-square test). Eugenol-free FS molars demonstrated significantly more Px radiographic outcomes than MTA (P<.001, chi-square test) or FS/MTA (P=.002, chi-square test) molars. Significantly lower survival was demonstrated for eugenol-free FS molars compared to MTA molars (P=.02, log-rank test) over 6 to 38 months. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy were superior to ferric sulfate and eugenol-free ferric sulfate pulpotomy after a median follow-up of 2 years.
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".