Root Canal Dentin Microhardness after Contact with Antibiotic Medications: An In Vitro Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Antibiotic pastes used as intracanal medication in cases of revascularization therapy might cause negative effects on tooth properties, such as a reduction in dentin microhardness. This in vitro study investigated dentin microhardness in three different locations distancing from the canal lumen after 20 days of treatment with a tri-antibiotic paste (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, and minocycline), and with a double-antibiotic paste (ciprofloxacin and metronidazole), with calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] UltracalTM XS-treated dentin as comparison. Material and Methods: Human mandibular premolars (n = 48) had the root canals cleaned and shaped and were used to produce dentin slices. Dentin slices remained immersed in the medications for 20 days. The Knoop microhardness (KHN) test was performed before (baseline/Day-0) and after treatment (Day-20) with the medications. Indentations were made at 25 µm, 50 µm, and 100 µm distances from the root canal lumen. The KHN was compared intra-group using Wilcoxon’s test. Independent groups were compared using Mann–Whitney’s and Kruskal–Wallis’ tests, at α = 5%. Results: The microhardness in all the tested groups was reduced at Day-20 in comparison with Day-0 (p < 0.001) (intra-group comparison/same distances). The Day-0 values were similar, and the Day-20 values were higher for the Ca(OH)2 group (p < 0.05) (comparison between groups/same distances). Conclusions: Calcium hydroxide for 20 days would be preferred rather than antibiotic pastes to minimize the expected reduction in dentin microhardness during regenerative procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".