Root dentine thickness in C‐shaped lower second molars after instrumentation: A CBCT and micro‐CT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".