Antibacterial effectiveness of a final rinse with MTAD and intracanal medication with 2% chlorhexidine gel in teeth with apical periodontitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This randomized-controlled and double-blinded clinical study assessed the antibacterial efficacy of (1) final rinse with BioPure™MTAD™, and (2) intracanal-medication with 2% chlorhexidine gel (CHX) in teeth with apical periodontitis in consenting humans. Thirty teeth were chemomechanically prepared using NaOCl, then rinsed with MTAD, or coloured saline. Bacteriological samples were obtained from canals before preparation (IA), after preparation (1B), and after the final rinse (1C). After 7d medication with CHX canals were flushed, sampled (2A), further irrigated and re-sampled (2B). Bacteria were enumerated by colony-forming-unit (CFU) counts after 14d incubation and epifluorescence-microscopy. High counts in 1A samples were >99% lower in 1B samples. Lower counts in 1B, 1C, 2A and 2B samples were not significantly different from each other. Microscopic counts were higher than CFU counts. A final rinse with MTAD and intracanal-medication with CHX did not reduce bacterial counts in infected canals beyond levels achieved by chemomechanical preparation using NaOCl.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".