Analysıs of Failures of Pulpotomy Treated Prımary Teeth: A Case Series and Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate 6 extracted or exfoliated crowns of primary molars treated with different pulpotomy medicaments and techniques. Materials and Methods: Six pulpotomy treated primary molars were examined whole and after bisection. The medicaments used in the study were formocresol, ferric sulfate. A few were primary teeth treated withlaser pulpotomies and mineral trioxide aggregate. Theteeth were either extracted due to clinical and/or radiographic failures. The reasons for failure or success were discerned with the radiographs and light microscopic inspection of different sections of the teeth. Results: Reasons for each failure could be determined by the above examinations. The primary reason for failure was determined to be clinical technique errors by the clinicians. Conclusion: The success of pulpotomy is mostly dependent on the practical experience of the clinician, use of the appropriate materials and clinical technique. Keywords: Primary Tooth; Pulpotomy; Failure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".