Treatment Outcome in Endodontics—The Toronto Study. Phases I and II: Apical Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study prospectively assessed the 4 to 8 yr outcome of apical surgery performed by graduate students in phases I and II of the Toronto Study. The study cohort included 155 teeth in 138 patients. Outcome was assessed by a blinded and calibrated examiner. Clinical and radiographic measures were used for a dichotomous outcome: healed (no signs and symptoms, Periapical Index score ≤ 2 or scar), or diseased (presence of signs and symptoms, or Periapical Index score ≥ 3). The recall rate was 85% and the overall healed rate 74%. Healed rate was significantly higher for teeth with small (≤ 5 mm) than larger preoperative lesions (χ2, p = 0.02). Logistic Regression revealed an increased odds of disease persistence for teeth with larger preoperative lesions (OR = 3.81, CI = 1.2–12.1), and preoperative root-filling of adequate length (OR = 3.7, CI = 1.1–11.1). Preoperative lesion size and root-filling length were significant predictors of outcome of apical surgery. This study prospectively assessed the 4 to 8 yr outcome of apical surgery performed by graduate students in phases I and II of the Toronto Study. The study cohort included 155 teeth in 138 patients. Outcome was assessed by a blinded and calibrated examiner. Clinical and radiographic measures were used for a dichotomous outcome: healed (no signs and symptoms, Periapical Index score ≤ 2 or scar), or diseased (presence of signs and symptoms, or Periapical Index score ≥ 3). The recall rate was 85% and the overall healed rate 74%. Healed rate was significantly higher for teeth with small (≤ 5 mm) than larger preoperative lesions (χ2, p = 0.02). Logistic Regression revealed an increased odds of disease persistence for teeth with larger preoperative lesions (OR = 3.81, CI = 1.2–12.1), and preoperative root-filling of adequate length (OR = 3.7, CI = 1.1–11.1). Preoperative lesion size and root-filling length were significant predictors of outcome of apical surgery.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".