Antibiofilm Activity of Five Different Endodontic Filling Materials Used in Primary Teeth Using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of five endodontic materials for primary teeth on in vitro mixed-species biofilms. METHODS: Zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) cement, Vitapex, Calen paste thickened with zinc oxide (ZO), pure calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) paste, and iodoform were evaluated. Sterile water was used as a control. Mixed-species biofilm was incubated in anaerobic conditions for 21 days. The biofilm specimens were placed in contact with the endodontic materials for periods of seven and 30 days. The biofilm was studied by using confocal laser scanning microscopy. The cell viability ratio was calculated. The results were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey tests. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between groups at both seven and 30 days (F equals 73,073, P=0.00). After 30 days, 69 percent, 51 percent, and 35 percent of the biofilm volume fluoresced red, indicating the proportion of bacteria killed by iodoform, Vitapex, and ZOE cement, respectively. Calen plus ZO and pure Ca(OH)2 paste were the least effective materials against the biofilms. CONCLUSIONS: Pure iodoform paste and iodoform containing Vitapex were the most effective materials against the biofilms. Vitapex appears to be a suitable endodontic material for primary teeth.
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".