Comparison of Working Length Determination in Mandibular Single-Rooted Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare working length calculated with conventional radiographs and an electronic apex locator (IPEX II) during the root canal treatment of mandibular anterior teeth. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was done in the Department of Operative Dentistry, Sardar Begum Dental Hospital, Peshawar during February and March 2018. A consecutive sampling technique was used for sampling. Only 30 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria of our study. Detailed medical and dental history was taken. Only patient fulfilling inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20. RESULTS: The mean age for patients was 45.33±5.16. 33% out of 30 patients (10) were male and 20 were females. The mean working length calculated from radiographs was 22.25±1.29 (min 20.09-max 24.10). The mean working length calculated by the electronic apex locator (IPEX II) was 22.17±1.28 (min 20.00-max 24.07). The mean difference between working length calculated by radiograph and electronic apex locator was -0.084mm, which means the working length determined by radiographs and by electronic apex locator has no difference in mandibular anterior teeth with single canals. CONCLUSION: Both the methods can be used effectively in endodontics for single-rooted mandibular teeth, but if both are used in combinations can lead to an improvement in the working length accuracy, which may significantly reduce the number of radiographs exposure, and increase the success and comfort for endodontic patients. KEYWORDS: Working Length, Apex Locator, Conventional Radiograph
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".