MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184131064 · doi:10.1111/aej.12548

Comparison of the effects from coronal pre‐flaring and glide‐path preparation on torque generation during root canal shaping procedure

2021· article· en· W3184131064 on OpenAlexaff
Sang Won Kwak, Jung‐Hong Ha, Ya Shen, Markus Haapasalo, Hyeon‐Cheol Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Endodontic Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal planeTorqueRoot canalNickel titaniumMaterials sciencePath (computing)Post hocDentinDentistryMathematicsComposite materialComputer sciencePhysicsMedicineAnatomyShape-memory alloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of glide-path preparation and coronal pre-flaring on torque generation of rotary nickel-titanium files. Sixty mesiobuccal root canals of 3D printed resin teeth (Dentalike) were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 15) according to the preparation method; Group 1: OneCurve only; Group 2: OneG and OneCurve; Group 3: OneFlare and OneCurve; Group 4: OneFlare, OneG, and OneCurve. During the final canal preparation procedure, the torque generated was recorded. The sum of generated torque and maximum torque were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc comparison. The summed torque was reduced by glide-path preparation and coronal pre-flaring (P < 0.05), whereas the maximum torque was not reduced by the glide-path preparation (P > 0.05). It will be advantageous to create a glide-path with coronal pre-flaring to reduce the stress and reactive forces to the NiTi file and root dentin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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