A retrospective study of root canal therapy in non-vital primary molars.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study was performed to assess the clinical and radiographic success rates of a formocresol and zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) primary molar root canal therapy (RCT) technique. The effects of this treatment on the permanent successors and on exfoliation times were also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study design: the retrospective study included 161 patients with 211 primary molars treated by RCT by a single operator in a private paediatric dental office in the Toronto area. Data were coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel database and analysis undertaken using SPSS software. Predominantly non-parametric tests were used to evaluate statistical differences (p < 0.05). RESULTS: A clinical success rate of 90% (190/211) and a radiographic success rate of 77.3% (136/176) were obtained. Following RCT in a primary molar, enamel defects were found in 6.8% (7/103) of premolars, all of which occurred in first premolars, and in patients treated at a mean age of 54.1 months (p < 0.005). Treated molars exfoliated on average 7.6 months sooner than contralateral teeth (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: This formocresol and ZOE RCT is a viable treatment for necrotic primary molars and yielded very high clinical and acceptable radiographic success rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".