Various heat-treated nickel–titanium rotary instruments evaluated in S-shaped simulated resin canals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Heat treatment of nickel-titanium (NiTi) alloy produces a better arrangement of the crystal structure, thereby leading to increased flexibility and improved fatigue resistance or plastic behavior. This study aimed to assess the performance of various heat-treated NiTi rotary instruments in S-shaped resin canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty S-shaped resin canals were instrumented (10/group) with either Twisted Files (R-phase), WaveOne (M-wire), Hyflex CM, or V Taper 2H (CM-wire) with the same apical size and taper (25/0.08). Each S-shaped resin canal was scanned both before and after instrumentation with microcomputed tomography. Changes in canal volume and transportation were evaluated at regular intervals (0.5 mm). Differences between instruments at the apical curve, coronal curve, and straight portion of the canals were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: All tested instruments caused more transportation at the coronal rather than apical curvatures, with the exception of Twisted Files for which apical transportation was the highest for any instrument or location (P < 0.05). The transportation was mostly influenced by the alloy type rather than their cross-sectional characteristics (P < 0.05). The volumetric increase after instrumentation was similar for all tested instruments at the apical curve (P > 0.05), whereas Hyflex CM created the most conservative preparations at the coronal curve (P < 0.05). At the straight portion, volumetric changes were largest for Twisted Files and smallest for V Taper 2H (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Amongst heat-treated NiTi instruments, the CM-wire based instruments created the most favorable preparations in S-shaped resin canals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".