The use of Intentional Replantation to Repair an External Cervical Resorptive Lesion not am Enable to Conventional Surgical Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intentional replantation consists of purposefully extracting a tooth, correcting the defect and replanting it into its original socket. This case report describes how this technique was used to successfully restore an external cervical resorptive (ECR) lesion. A 22-year-old man was diagnosed with ECR of the mandibular right canine following clinical and radiographic examination. CBCT showed the lesion had been initiated distally and extended circumferentially around the root canal. The nature of the resorptive lesion meant that it was inaccessible to repair conventionally in a predictable manner. This report describes how intentional replantation was used to access and restore the lesion with minimal patient cooperation and postoperative discomfort. At an 18-month recall the tooth was clinically sound with no radiographic evidence of inflammatory or replacement root resorption. Intentional replantation should be considered a viable treatment option when ECR is inaccessible and cannot be restored using conventional techniques.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".