Long‐term treatment outcomes in immature permanent teeth by revascularisation using <scp>MTA</scp> and <scp>GIC</scp> as canal‐sealing materials: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulp revascularisation with MTA sealing has been accepted as an alternative treatment for non-vital immature permanent teeth. Successful revascularisation cases with GIC sealing were also reported, but lack of long-term researches. AIM: To evaluate long-term outcomes of revascularisation using MTA and GIC as canal-sealing materials in non-vital immature permanent teeth. DESIGN: Clinical and radiographic data of 60 non-vital immature permanent teeth treated with revascularisation (36.8 ± 12.4 months of follow-up) were reviewed. Of these, 28 teeth were sealed with MTA, and 32 with GIC. Tooth survival, success rate, and increases in root length and dentine wall thickness were evaluated. RESULTS: Teeth in MTA group showed a similar survival rate (96%) to GIC group (100%). The success rate in MTA group (93%) was greater than that in GIC group (59%). Eight of fourteen failed teeth due to recurrent apical disease (seven teeth in GIC group and one in MTA group) achieved complete root development. There was no statistically significant difference in root length or dentine wall thickness increase between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcome of revascularisation in non-vital immature permanent teeth sealed with GIC was not as good as that with MTA. Although more recurrent apical disease developed, results on root development were acceptable in GIC sealed cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".