MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322100680 · doi:10.7759/cureus.35477

An In-Vitro Analysis of Root Fracture Strength Using Single File Systems

2023· article· en· W4322100680 on OpenAlexaff
Renu Batra, Rana K Varghese, Reena Bagde, Priyanka Razdan, Madhura Pawar, Suchareeta Panda, Ramanpal Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFracture (geology)In vitroComposite materialGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim Root canal obturation during endodontic therapy supports the root canal space and helps the extra tooth structure resist fracture. Some believe endodontic-treated teeth are more likely to break than natural teeth. The most common causes of tooth decay are endodontic treatment's extensive tooth structure loss and coronal and radicular dentin drying. Materials and methods Two hundred removed human permanent mandibular first molars were allowed to be stored in isotonic saline solution for a maximum of 72 hours. The collection, storing, sterilizing, and handling of the samples were done per the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Out of a total of 200 newly removed mandibular first molars, 120 teeth were finally gathered, sterilized, and kept in 1% thymol in normal saline at 30 degrees Celsius. The access cavity was prepared, and the pulp chamber was cleaned and debrided using an ultrasonic scaler tip while being irrigated with regular saline. A digital radiograph was taken after a 6# K file was placed to the working length in the mesiobuccal canal. Based on their weights, the samples were dispersed equally across the six groups (n=20). They looked inside them to ensure that the root morphology was normal and that the canal was open and free of any abnormalities, damage, or fillings. They looked at the curvature of the mesial root and chose samples with a curvature of 20-35 degrees. The mesial roots were dissected, labeled, and put in a different location. Results Overall, the experimental group's incidence of buccolingual fractures was 55%, making it the most prevalent fracture type. The mesiodistal type of fracture had a 35% incidence rate, which was the second most prevalent. We found that comminuted and transverse fractures occurred in only 15% and 5% of patients, respectively, of all fractures. Both the test and the control groups had a disproportionately high number of buccolingual fractures. When comparing the root fracture loads of the two experimental groups, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) Conclusion Within this study's restrictions and standardization techniques, it can be concluded that the single file system-prepared roots' resistance to fracture was comparable to that of the control group. It is recommended to conduct additional research on these single file systems using different metrics and to assess them in a clinical setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207