Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The ideal goal of endodontic therapy is to decrease the microbial load within the root canal system followed by the placement of a hermetic seal of the apical portion of the root. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) has long been considered the gold standard for disinfecting root canals, but, the presence of a persistent intraradicular biofilm in properly cleaned and shaped canals has led to the need of development for adjunct irrigant targeting these complex structures. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on the biofilm of NaOCl and delmopinol hydrochloride (DH), a new FDA approved oral rinse, on multiple species biofilms. Methods: Preliminary data was collected with zones of inhibition on Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa grown on Mueller-Hinton vs 30% Poloxamer (biofilm phenotype) plates incubated at 37C for 24 hours. The effect was then studied using a Calgary Bioflm Device with crystal violet staining (CV), scanning electron microscope imaging (SEM) and sonication with Mueller-Hinton plating. Results: The data showed that delmopinol hydrochloride does not possess the strong antimicrobial properties that sodium hypochlorite does. However, delmopinol hydrochloride did possess antibiofilm capabilities, on all organisms that remained, even at diluted concentrations. Conclusion: Delmopinol hydrochloride is not an irrigant to replace sodium hypochlorite, but could be used as an adjunct in the final steps of irrigation to reduce biofilm colonization..
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".