MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2422584280 · doi:10.1002/sca.21331

A micro‐computed tomography study of the negotiation and anatomical feature in apical root canal of mandibular molars

2016· article· en· W2422584280 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Min, Jingzhi Ma, Ya Shen, Gary S.P. Cheung, Yuan Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueScanning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsArc (geometry)MolarFeature (linguistics)Mandibular second molarComputed tomographyOrthodonticsPopulationAnatomyComputer scienceMathematicsMaterials scienceGeometryMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical negotiation of various apical anatomic features of the mandibular first molars in a Chinese population using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). A total of 152 mandibular first molars were scanned with micro-CT at 30 µm resolution. The apical 5 mm of root canal (ARC) was reconstructed three dimensionally and classified. Subsequently, the access cavity was prepared with the ARC anatomy blinded to the operator. The ARC was negotiated with a size 10 K file with or without precurve. Information on the ability to obtain a reproducible glide path was recorded. The anatomical classification of ARC was Type I with 68.45% in mandibular first molars. The negotiation result of ARC with Category i was 387 canals (74.00%). With a bent negotiating file, 96 canals were negotiated, including 88 reproducible glide paths (Category ii) and 8 irregular glide paths (Category iii). About 7.65% canals could not be negotiated with patency successfully (Category iv). The statistical analyze shown the anatomic feature of ARC had effect on the negotiation of ARC (p < 0.05). In conclusion, ARC anatomic variations had a strong potential impact on the negotiation. The category of negotiation in ARC would be helpful in the using of NiTi rotary instruments. Negotiation of ARC to the working length with patency should be careful and skillful because of the complexities of ARC. SCANNING 38:819-824, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScanningSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207