To Compare the Effectiveness of Biodentine versus Mineral Trioxide aggregate as Direct Pulp Capping agent in carious exposed permanent tooth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To compare the effectiveness of Biodentine versus mineral trioxide aggregate as direct pulp capping agent in carious exposed permanent tooth Study Design: Randomized controlled trial Placeand duration: Operative Dentistry, Department of de’Montmorency College of Dentistry / Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore From 29-07-16 to 30-01-17 Methods: Sample size of 75 in each group (using non-probability) calculated using 80 percent power, 5% level of significance with expected percentage of effectiveness (lack of periapical radiolucency) among groups i.e. 92.68%19 in Biodentine group vs. 78%20 in mineral trioxide group aggregate as direct pulp capping agent. Data was entered and analyzed with IBM SPSS 20. Level of significance was kept at p-value ≤ 0.05. Results: Total 150 patients, 82 are male and 68 are female. The age of patients was 18-45 years. The Mean and SD of age of patients is 30±7.916. In group I, 57(75%) showed efficacy and 18(25%) showed failure of efficacy while in group II 72 (95%) showed efficacy and 3 (5%) showed failure of efficacy after 3 months. Comparison of efficacy shows that group II Biodentinehas better efficacy as compared to group I. Conclusion: It is concluded that Biodentine is more effective than MTA.It can be used as bulk fill, simplify the pulp capping procedure. Keywords: direct pulp capping, vital pulp therapy, efficacy of newer pulp capping materials, MTA and Biodentine.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".