The status of clinical trials regarding root canal sealers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to compare the retreatability of three calcium silicate-containing sealers (BioRoot RCS, MTA Fillapex, Endo C.P.M.) and an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH Plus) with different root canal instruments (Hedström files, Reciproc R40, Mtwo retreatment file R 25/.05 + Mtwo 40/.06, and F6 SkyTaper) concerning sealer remnants and retreatment time. Root canals of 192 teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R40. All root canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with Reciproc R40 gutta-percha and one of the sealers ( n = 48 per sealer). Two months later, retreatment was performed using one of the mentioned instruments ( n = 12 per instrument and sealer). The roots were split longitudinally, and both halves were investigated using light microscopy. The percentage of sealer remnants covering the root canal wall was evaluated using the software ImageJ. The time required for retreatment was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test. Regarding the percentage of root canal filling remnants as well as retreatment time, two-way ANOVA indicated that the results were significantly affected by the sealer ( p < 0.001) and by the instrument used ( p < 0.05). Overall, the use of AH Plus was associated with significantly more remnants compared to all other sealers ( p < 0.001) and F6 SkyTaper instruments allowed significantly faster retreatment than the other instruments ( p < 0.05). The retreatability of calcium silicate-containing sealers was better compared to AH Plus as less sealer remnants and shorter retreatment times were observed. Retreatment with engine-driven NiTi instruments was superior compared to hand instrumentation. Engine-driven NiTi instruments are better suited to remove root canal fillings than stainless steel Hedström files.
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 | 0.176 | 0.411 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".