Quasi‐3D dynamic photoelastic analysis of stress distribution during preparation of simulated canals with 13 mechanical preparation systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study is to compare the stress produced on the internal walls of simulated canals by nine rotary and four reciprocating systems. METHODOLOGY: Sixty-five isotropic transparent blocks containing a 60° curved and tapered simulated canal were selected and distributed into 13 groups (n = 5) according to the preparation system: BioRace, HyFlex EDM, iRaCe, Mtwo, One RECI, ProTaper Next, RaCe EVO, Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, R-Motion, VDW.ROTATE, XP-Endo Rise Shaper, and XP-Endo Shaper. Each resin block was mounted in a vice and a digital camera recorded the entire sequence of each preparation system through a circular polariscope set for dark field analysis. The video frames when each instrument reached the end of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the canal were extracted from the recordings and analysed by two independent observers regarding the stress generated on the canal walls using a semi-quantitative evaluation on a 0-5 scale. Intra- and inter-observer agreement were subjected to the Cohen's Kappa coefficient test, whilst the experimental results were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction (α = 5%). RESULTS: The inter- and intra-observer agreement were 0.98 and 1, respectively. Most instruments demonstrated acceptable performance (scores ≤ 2) in all thirds. Other instruments, such as the HyFlex EDM 25.12 (coronal and middle thirds), Reciproc Blue R25 and Reciproc R25 (coronal and apical thirds), R-Motion 30.04 (apical third), and VDW.ROTATE 20.05 (apical third) showed scores higher than 3. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference amongst the tested systems at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds (p < .05). CONCLUSION: None of the canal instrumentation protocols were stress-free, showing varying levels of stress concentrations. Various factors seemed to influence the magnitude of stress and its distribution pattern on the canal walls. Overall, instruments characterized by a larger taper, lower speed, reciprocating motion, and made of heat-treated NiTi alloy exhibited higher patterns of stress distribution.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".