Influence of rotary and reciprocating kinematics on the accuracy of an integrated apex locator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated in vitro the influence of nickel-titanium instruments kinematics on the accuracy and variation of root canal working length measurements, performed with an integrated apex locator, at glide path and at the end of shaping. Forty-four mandibular incisors, included in an alginate model, were allocated at random to two groups: reciprocating and rotary. Working length was determined at glide path stage and at the end of shaping. Measurements given by the integrated apex locator were matched with visual measurements. The apex locator accuracy was based on inter-group comparison. The variation in working length was based on intra-group comparison. Kinematics influenced the accuracy of measurements only after shaping (p < 0.05), and not in the glide path (p > 0.05). Rotary had values closer to the visual measurements. Diminishing of measures occurred after shaping for reciprocating (p < 0.05); and at glide-path stage for rotary (p > 0.05). The integrated apex locator was more accurate with rotary kinematics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".