MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136983892 · doi:10.1111/aej.12509

Root dentine thickness in C‐shaped lower second molars after instrumentation: A CBCT and micro‐CT study

2021· article· en· W3136983892 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela Martín, Georgette Arce Brissón, Bin‐Wen Chen, Cecilia Noemí de Caso, Ana Cecilia Boetto, María Inés Jacobo, R Higa, Silvia Marta Braschi, Silvio Marchegiani, Andrés Monsalvo, Ya Shen, Markus Haapasalo

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Endodontic Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolarPerforationInstrumentation (computer programming)Root canalDentistryMaterials scienceCone beam computed tomographyOrthodonticsMedicineComputed tomographyRadiologyComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stripping perforation is a possible complication in instrumentation of C-shaped canals. This study evaluated the minimum thickness of the root canal wall in C-shaped teeth after instrumentation. Twelve extracted C-shaped mandibular second molars (four teeth of type I, II and III each) were examined by CBCT (voxel size 90 μm) before and after instrumentation with WOG primary file. Micro-CT scans (voxel size 30 μm) were obtained after instrumentation. Percentage of canal wall area touched by the file and minimum thickness of dentine were measured and compared between CBCT and micro-CT. In type I C-shape canals, less than 10% of the canal wall area was touched by the instrument. In ten teeth, the shortest distance to root surface was from the instrumented area; no perforations occurred. CBCT and micro-CT measurements were in good agreement in ten cases; in two teeth, micro-CT revealed considerably shorter distance to root surface. The two shortest distances were 0.27 and 0.41 mm.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Endodontic JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207