Treatment Outcome in Endodontics—The Toronto Study. Phase II: Initial Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 4- to 6-yr outcome of initial (first-time) endodontic treatment was assessed for Phase II of the "Toronto Study." In total, 442 teeth were treated by using flared preparation and vertical compaction of warm gutta-percha or step-back preparation and lateral compaction. With 126 teeth excluded (discontinuers: deceased and relocated patients), 163 dropouts, and 31 extracted, 122 (48% recall) were examined for outcome: "healed" (no apical periodontitis [AP], signs, symptoms) or "diseased" (AP, signs, or symptoms). Phase II was analyzed separately and combined with Phase I (n = 242), using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests (p < or = 0.05). The healed rate (combined sample, 85%) differed significantly for preoperative AP (absent, 93%; present, 79%), treatment technique (flared preparation and vertical compaction, 90%; step-back preparation and lateral compaction, 80%), gender (females, 90%; males, 79%), number of roots (1-92%; > or = 2-81%), and root-filling length (adequate, 87%; inadequate, 77%). Logistic regression revealed increased risk of disease for preoperative AP (odds ratio = 3.3) and technique (odds ratio = 2.3). This study confirmed AP and highlighted treatment technique as the main predictors of outcome in initial treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".