In Vivo Evaluation of Biocompatibility of Three Biomaterials Used in Endodontics for Prosthetic Purposes in Complex Rehabilitation Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ideal biomaterial used in endodontics in the process of sealing the radicular canals should possess a group of qualities for a predictable outcome: biocompatibility, initiation of ontogenesis and cementogenesis, ease of handling, sufficient manipulation time, and convenient price. For a perfect sealing, the root canal treatment can be followed by prosthetic restoration. This study of biocompatibility aims to determine the quantification of the local reaction following the implantation of three biomaterials in the rabbit subcutaneous connective tissue. The used biomaterials with particular reparative properties are: MTA (Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Dentsply, Tulsa Dental, Johnson City, TN, USA), Sealapex (Kerr, Switzerland), and DiaRoot BioAggregate (Innovative BioCaramix Inc, Vancouver, BC, Canada). The first two biomaterials (MTA, Sealapex) are already being used in endodontic treatments, and the latter was newly introduced during the concrete development of the study. This is an experimental study focused on qualitative and quantitative analysis based on histopathological examination and underlined by the positive result of the study undertaken of the applicability of oral rehabilitation treatments, increasing patients’ quality of life by a significant proportion of 95%, and generating optimal functionality of the stomatognathic system with prosthetic devices as well as accomplishing the objectives of homeostasis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".