Apical Sealing and Bioactivity of an Experimental Gutta-Percha Containing Niobium Phosphate Bioglass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the apical sealing ability and bioactivity of an experimental gutta-percha containing niobium phosphate bioglass. Thirty-six human premolars were endodontically prepared and divided into three groups: GPC—filling with conventional gutta-percha; GBC—filling with bioceramic gutta-percha (EndoSequence BC); GNB—filling with experimental gutta-percha containing niobophosphate. Teeth were stored in tubes containing 2 mL of simulated body fluid (SBF) solution in an oven for 30 days. Then, the samples were immersed in lanthanum nitrate solution and analyzed for apical nanoleakage (NI) with a scanning electron microscope (SEM/EDS) and transmission electron microscope (TEM). Gutta-percha specimens were immersed for 28 days (SBF) and analyzed in SEM/EDS and X-ray diffraction (XRD) to assess bioactivity. NI data originated from the SEM/EDS were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (α = 5%). NI data originated from TEM and bioactivity were descriptively reported. Statistical analysis did not detect a significant difference between groups (p = 0.13) for NI. In the bioactivity analysis, an abundant layer of hydroxyapatite was identified only in the surface of the GNB group samples. The gutta-percha containing niobophosphate bioglass promoted an apical sealing similar to EndoSequence BC, in addition to demonstrating bioactivity through the deposition of hydroxyapatite on the surface of the material after immersion in SBF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".