Antibacterial Potential of 2.5% Sodium Hypochlorite in Distinct Irrigation Protocols on Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of irrigation methods on antibacterial potential of 2.5% NaOCl on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. Materials and methods Enterococcus faecalis biofilms were prepared during 60 days on 48 human root canals and randomized into control and experimental groups using positive and negative pressure irrigation. Bacterial growth was analyzed using turbidity of culture medium followed by UV spectrophotometry, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses were performed. Mean and standard deviations were used for evaluate the mean optical densities associated to the number of bacteria present culture, and Scheirer-Ray-Hare (an extension of the Kruskal-Wallis test) and Tamhane test to analyze the SEM images in the groups and thirds. Significance was set at 5%. Results Enterococcus faecalis was still present after root canal cleaning regardless of irrigation methods or bacterial identification methods. Conclusion Positive and negative pressure irrigation protocols using 2.5% NaOCl show a similar capacity to reduce E. faecalis in infected root canals. How to cite this article Alves DRS, Cunha RS, da Silveira Bueno CE, de Alencar AHG, de Araújo Estrela CR, dos Santos TO, Estrela C. Antibacterial Potential of 2.5% Sodium Hypochlorite in Distinct Irrigation Protocols on Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(5):340-346.
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".