Apically extruded debris in curved root canals using the waveone gold reciprocating system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : The purpose of this study was to evaluate apical debris extrusion in curved root canals using a specific file system.METHODS:50 human mandibular molars were extracted and chosen for the study, ranging between 20 and 40 degree and curvature radii <10mm were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=20) according to the kinematics used for root canal preparation ( reciprocating motion with waveone gold reciprocating system) and the Manual Technique. The apically extruded debris were collected in eppendorf tubes. The tubes are stored in an incubator for 5 days. The time recorded for each instrumentation procedure was recorded. Results: The Wave One Gold reciprocating system is associated with less extrusion of debris as compared to Manual technique. Conclusion : Under the conditions of the study both the Wave One Gold Reciprocating system and the Manual instrumentation technique caused apical debris extrusion to some degree. The WaveOne Gold reciprocating system caused less extrusion of debris in curved root canals compared with manual instrumentation technique.
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 | 0.001 | 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".