MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089017220 · doi:10.1002/lsm.23317

Characteristics of the Irrigant Flow in a Simulated Lateral Canal Under Two Typical Laser‐Activated Irrigation Regimens

2020· article· en· W3089017220 on OpenAlexaff
Zheng Su, Zhibo Li, Ya Shen, Yuhao Bai, Ying Zheng, Chong Pan, Benxiang Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueLasers in Surgery and Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIrrigationLaserDentistryFlow (mathematics)MedicineMaterials scienceOpticsBiologyMechanicsPhysicsAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) and shockwave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS) are two promising laser-activated irrigation (LAI) methods for root canal irrigation. Their performance in driving irrigant flush in a complex root canal system will be evaluated by microscale particle image velocimetry (μPIV) measurement and will be compared with that of ultrasonic-activated irrigation (UAI). STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: A μPIV system with 7 μm fluorescent tracer particles was adopted to measure two-dimensional (2D) velocity fields around the junction region, with a size of 1.8 mm × 1.5 mm, between one main canal and one lateral canal in an endodontic training block, which was driven by SWEEPS (Er:YAG laser) operating at 15 Hz and 20 mJ. The flow field driven by PIPS (Er:YAG laser) at the same frequency and energy, as well as by UAI (with non-cutting insert) operating at 40% unit power, was also measured for a direct comparison. RESULTS: It was found that both SWEEPS and PIPS can activate a so-called "breath mode" during the irrigation. Namely, the induced irrigant flush presented a back-and-forth oscillation along both the main canal and the lateral one. The maximum flow speed in the lateral canal was observed to be up to 10 m/s in the SWEEPS modality, while reduced to around 7 m/s in the PIPS modality. The penetration length in the lateral canal in both modalities was estimated to be larger than 1 mm. In comparison, the flow field induced by UAI was characterized as irregular vortical structures, the maximum flow speed in the lateral canal was 0.15 m/s and significantly lower than LAI (P < 0.01), and the penetration length was less than 300 μm and lower than LAI (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to UAI, PIPS, and SWEEPS are more capable of delivering the irrigant deeper into the lateral canal. Furthermore, the back-and-forth flush in the breath mode is ideal for removing debris during irrigation. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLasers in Surgery and MedicineSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207