Silver Nanoparticles and Their Therapeutic Applications in Endodontics: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficient elimination of microorganisms and their byproducts from infected root canals is compromised by the limitations in conventional root canal disinfection strategies and antimicrobials. Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) are advantageous for root canal disinfection, mainly due to their wide-spectrum anti-microbial activity. Compared to other commonly used nanoparticulate antibacterials, AgNPs have acceptable antibacterial properties and relatively low cytotoxicity. Owing to their nano-scale, AgNPs penetrate deeper into the complexities of the root canal systems and dentinal tubules, as well as enhancing the antibacterial properties of endodontic irrigants and sealers. AgNPs gradually increase the dentin hardness in endodontically treated teeth and promote antibacterial properties when used as a carrier for intracanal medication. The unique properties of AgNPs make them an ideal additive for different endodontic biomaterials. However, the possible side effects of AgNPs, such as cytotoxicity and tooth discoloration potential, merits further research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".