Evaluation of a Novel Tool for Apical Plug Formation during Apexification of Immature Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the sealing ability and time required for the formation of Biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregation (MTA) apical plugs, using three different delivery methods: an amalgam carrier (AC), the Micro Apical Placement (MAP) System or a novel tool using a modified cannula (MC). Materials and Methods: A total of 60 uniformed molar roots were divided into three main groups, according to the technique of apical plug formation: AC, MAP, and MC. Each group was divided into two subgroups, according to the filling material used: MTA and Biodentine. A timer was used to calculate the required time for apical plug formation. After setting the filling materials, the apical microleakage of the formed plugs was quantified using the dye extraction method and spectrophotometry. The differences between the groups were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and LSD post hoc tests. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: No significant differences were reported in the time required to form the apical plugs in all groups (p > 0.05). However, the apical plugs formed by the AC method had significantly higher microleakage than those formed using the MAP and MC methods (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the sealing ability of the apical plugs formed by the MC method is comparable to the MAP method and better than the AC method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".