Analysis of cleaning, sterilization, storage process and frequency of endodontic instrument replacement of endodontists from the city of Caxias do Sul/RS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maintenance of the aseptic chain associated with the knowledge and mastery of technique by the Endodontists are key factors for the success of endodontic treatment. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate, through a questionnaire, the care and cleaning, sterilization and storage methods of endodontic instruments, and the time of material disposal by endodontists from city of Caxias do Sul/ RS. Material and methods: Thirty-two endodontists participated in the study. The professionals answered a questionnaire with eight questions regarding biosecurity methods that they applied in their offices. Results: The cleaning process most adopted by most professionals was the use of brush associated or not with ultrasound. The disinfecting agent of choice by most respondents was the enzymatic detergent. All professionals performing the sterilization process by autoclave. Concerning to the disposal of manual endodontic instruments, fifteen participants reported to control the presence of twist or fracture and sixteen by the number of uses. For the rotary and reciprocating systems, most endodontists controlled the instrument replacement by the number of uses; with mean age of five uses for rotatory instruments. For the reciprocating system, different responses regarding the number of uses were reported. Conclusion: This study showed that the endodontists from Caxias do Sul/RS followed a satisfactory protocol for cleaning and sterilization of endodontic instruments. However, for the replacement of rotatory and reciprocating instruments, it was found that most professionals did not follow the manufacturers’ recommendation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".