Effect of Reciprocating Systems and Working Lengths on Apical Microcrack Development: a micro-CT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of root canal preparation with single-file reciprocating systems at different working lengths on the development of apical microcracks using micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging. Forty extracted human mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=10) according to the systems and working length used to prepare the root canals: Group A - WaveOne Gold at apical foramen (AF), Group B - WaveOne Gold 1 mm short of the AF (AF-1 mm), Group C - Unicone (AF) and Group D - Unicone (AF-1 mm). Micro-CT scanning was performed before and after root canal preparation at an isotropic resolution of 14 µm. Then, three examiners assessed the cross-sectional images generated to detect microcracks in the apical portion of the roots. Apical microcracks were visualized in 3, 1, 1, and 3 specimens in groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. All these microcracks observed after root canal preparation already existed prior to instrumentation, and no new apical microcrack was detected. For all groups, the number of slices presenting microcracks after root canal preparation was the same as before canal preparation. Root canal preparation with WaveOne Gold and Unicone, regardless of the working length, was not associated with apical microcrack formation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".