The status of clinical trials regarding root canal sealers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to present the results and analyses of clinical trials, including updates on the different functions of root canal sealers. Materials and Methods: In June 2023, we performed a comprehensive search of ClinicalTrials.gov to identify interventional clinical trials pertaining to root canal sealers. In total, 23 clinical trials conducted up to June 2023 were included in this study. Results: Approximately half of the trials (11 out of 23) were completed, while none were terminated or withdrawn. Each included trial had a minimum of 10 participants, with 11 trials having more than 100 participants. None of the assessed trials provided outcomes, and the majority (17 out of 23) lacked associated publications. In terms of geographic distribution, the USA and Canada did not contribute to any root canal sealer trials. Conclusions: This study highlights the lack of diversity in trial locations, the absence of reported results, and a scarcity of clinical trials examining the physicochemical properties of different sealers. Most published trials primarily focused on assessing the post-operative pain effect of these sealers, but no significant difference was found regarding post-operative pain control.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".