Relationship between time to hemostasis and outcomes of pulpotomy using iRoot BP Plus in symptomatic young permanent teeth: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to investigate the relationship between time to hemostasis and pulpotomy outcomes with the use of iRoot BP Plus (Innovative Bioceramics, Vancouver, Canada) for young permanent teeth of patients aged from 7 to 12 with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and evaluate the outcomes of pulpotomy. The present study was a prospective cohort study. Two hundred and six young permanent teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis underwent pulpotomy with the use of iRoot BP Plus. All patients underwent pulpotomy in accordance with a standardized protocol. Patients were postoperatively re-called after 3, 6, 12 months. Successful cases were defined according to clinical and radiographic evaluations. Main outcome measures included tooth position, cave shape, previous restoration, preoperative symptoms, time to hemostasis and outcomes. On the basis of univariate linear regression model, the relationships between time to hemostasis was evaluated, and p < 0.05 indicated a difference that achieved statistical significance. One hundred and ninety-three teeth can be evaluated after a follow-up for 6 to 36 months. The mean age of subjects was 9.43 ± 1.51 years. The overall clinical and radiographic success rate of pulpotomy reached 71.5% (138/193). After adjusting potential confounders (age, sex, previous restoration), non-linear relationship was detected between time to hemostasis and pulpotomy outcomes whose point was 4 minutes. The relationship between time to hemostasis and pulpotomy outcomes is non-linear. Pulpotomy outcomes was negatively related with time to hemostasis when time to hemostasis is more than 4 minutes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".