MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment Outcome in Endodontics—The Toronto Study. Phase II: Initial Treatment

2004· article· en· W4243839357 on OpenAlex
Mahsa Farzaneh, Sarah Abitbol, Herenia P. Lawrence, Sonia Friedman

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endodontics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioEndodonticsDentistryCompactionLogistic regressionPeriodontitisSurgeryInternal medicineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 ≤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%; ≥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. 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 ≤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%; ≥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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.326 · 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