The Effect of Sealer Application Methods on Voids Volume after Aging of Three Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers: A Micro-Computed Tomography Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During obturation, air voids are undesirable as they may provide shelter for microorganisms or passage for fluids. This study aimed to compare the occurrence of voids between three calcium silicate-based sealers (CSBSs) (MTA-Fillapex, BioRoot-RCS, Bio-C) and the change in their volume after aging. In addition, we aimed to compare voids when using two sealer application methods: lentulo-spiral (LS) and gutta-percha (GP) cone. Thirty extracted mandibular premolars (n = 30) were endodontically prepared and obturated using single GP cone (SGPC) technique. Each sealer was applied to 10 teeth (n = 10) using LS or GP. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to quantify the volume of root filling and voids before and after 8-week storage in a phosphate-rich medium. The percentage of root filling and voids were compared between the groups using a Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test with a Bonferroni correction. Before aging, the percentages of root filling volume after obturation were comparable with no significant differences between sealers (p = 0.325) or application methods (p = 0.950). After aging, the voids’ volume increased significantly in all sealers (p ≤ 0.05). However, no significant differences were found between sealers (p = 0.302). In conclusion, voids in CSBSs may not reduce in size with aging; hence, SGPC should be carefully selected for suitable cases.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it