Comparative evaluation of bactericidal effects on Enterococcus faecalis using diode laser irradiation, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate irrigation"- an in vitro study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This in vitro study was performed to evaluate the bactericidal effects of Diode laser, 3% Sodium hypochlorite and 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate irrigation on root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis. METHOD: Seventy single rooted central incisors were prepared and sixty was contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis. After 48 hours of incubation samples were divided into 7 groups-Group 1- Sterility control (canals not contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis ); Group 2- Positive control canals with no other treatment; Group 3- canals were treated with 3% NaOCl during biomechanical preparation; Group 4- canals were treated with 2% CHX; Group 5- canals were treated with 980nm diode laser; Group 6- was treated with combination of laser and 3% NaOCl; Group 7- were treated with laser and 2% CHX, the CFU of all the groups were checked. RESULT: Group 3 and 6 were significantly effective as there was no growth of E. faecalis (p=<0.001), group 7 was significantly more effective than group 2 (p=<0.001). There was no statistical significance between group 7 and group 3 and 6 (p=0. 474), the maximum amount of growth was seen in group 4. CONCLUSION: 3% NaOCl was the most effective irritant comparatively and combination of 2% CHX and laser was as effective as 3% NaOCl and hence can be used as an alternative for 3% NaOCl.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".