Effect of Pulp Chamber Access, Instrumentation, Obturation, and Restoration on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Canine Teeth in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary studies documenting the effect of endodontic treatment on tooth fracture resistance are scarce. The objective of this ex vivo study was to evaluate the effects of mesial access preparation and restoration, as well as pulp chamber access, instrumentation, obturation, and restoration, on the fracture resistance and characteristics of canine teeth in dogs. Sixty-five dog canine teeth were divided into 4 groups: 1. Standard endodontic treatment through a mesial access only; 2. Treatment as per group 1, adding an incisal access, instrumentation and obturation of the pulp chamber, and restoration of the access; 3. Treatment as per group 2, without pulp chamber obturation or restoration of the incisal access; and 4. Untreated teeth. The fracture resistance and characteristics of each group were documented using axial compression testing, angled 45° disto-occlusal to the long axis of the crown. The maximum force prior to fracture in groups 1, 3, and 4 were not statistically different, demonstrating that restored mesial and incisal accesses with pulp chamber instrumentation did not statistically affect fracture resistance. However, obturated and restored group 2 teeth demonstrated decreased fracture resistance compared to all other groups ( P < .001). Additionally, 26.7% of group 1 teeth sustained complicated crown fractures, while 100% of group 2 teeth fractured within the obturation or restorative materials, preventing pulp exposure in these cases. Although the cause and clinical importance of decreased tooth fracture resistance following pulp chamber obturation and restoration remains unknown, it may provide protective value for maintaining a coronal seal in the event of tooth fracture.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".