Evaluation of Sealer Remnants Using a Bioceramic Sealer Single-cone Technique after Post Space Preparation and its Influence on the Adhesion of Fibre Posts in vitro.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare calcium silicate-based endodontic sealer and epoxy resin-based sealer remnants on root canal walls after post space preparation and their influence on the bond strength of fibre posts fixed with a dual-cured resin cement. METHODS: Thirty-six extracted single-root mandibular premolars were instrumented and divided randomly into two equal groups with different endodontic sealers. iRoot SP (Innovative BioCeramix, Vancouver, Canada) was employed in the experimental group and AH Plus (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) was used in the control group. Sealer remnants were observed under an endodontic microscope after root canal therapy and post space preparation. Fibre posts were fixed with dual-cured resin cement. Specimens were taken at each third of the post space. The push-out bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine and fracture modes were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using an independent samples t test and one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in bond strength of fibre posts between the control and experimental group (P > 0.05); however, sealer remnants were observed in 38.9% of the samples treated with iRoot SP and none of the samples treated with AH Plus. The major fracture mode in samples treated with iRoot SP was adhesive failure between the resin cement and the post, and no adhesive failure between the resin cement and dentine occurred at the site of the sealer remnant. The presence of iRoot SP remnants on the root canal walls after post space preparation did not interfere with bonding. CONCLUSION: iRoot SP is a viable option for root canal obturation before fibre post cementation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".