MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295154799 · doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6ns4.12133

Apically extruded debris in curved root canals using the waveone gold reciprocating system

2022· article· en· W4295154799 on OpenAlexaff
Baljeet Singh Hora, Asheesh Sawhny, Pragati Barukial, Debasmita Ghosh, Pushpendu Roy, Ankita Shrivastav

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocating motionExtrusionInstrumentation (computer programming)Materials scienceRoot canalDebrisOrthodonticsComposite materialGeologyMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health SciencesSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207