Mustard Gel is an Effective Intracanal Medicament Against Enterococcus Faecalis: an In-Vitro Study on Extracted Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p>
 <p><strong>Background and Objective:</strong> Root canal treatment is hampered by the presence of resilient bacteria within the canals of teeth which leads to the need for incorporation of intra-canal medication. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of mustard gel against the highly resistant Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) bacteria in comparison with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) paste as an intra-canal medicament.</p>
 <p><strong>Methods:</strong> This experimental study comprised forty extracted single-rooted teeth which were equally divided into two groups. In group 1, Ca(OH)2 paste was applied whereas in group 2, mustard gel was used. After disinfection, each tooth was sectioned horizontally into three equal parts. The standardized middle section was inoculated with a controlled strain of E. faecalis followed by the application of intra-canal medicaments for a week in both groups. The bacterial colonies were counted as colony-forming units (CFU/ml). Data were entered and analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 25.0.</p>
 <p><strong>Results:</strong> Microscopically, E. faecalis appeared as cocci-round shaped in chains or pairs. The median bacterial count was 1,550 (775-2,500) for group 1 (Ca(OH)2 paste) as compared to only 400 (200-775) in group 2 (mustard gel) (p &lt; 0.001).</p>
 <p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Mustard gel can be used as a cost-effective, readily available, and safe herbal alternative to Ca(OH)2 paste for root canal treatments.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".