Single Visit Apexification In Young Permanent Tooth- A Case Report With 3 Year Follow Up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trauma to permanent dentition during the period of root formation may result in inadequate root growth and an open apex. There is an enormous endodontic difficulty in treating these young permanent tooth with pulpal necrosis and periapical disease as there is absence of a natural apical constriction in these condition. Hence, in order to allow the obturating material to condense, an apical barrier must be induced or created. Some disadvantages of the traditional calcium hydroxide apexification method include the requirement for long-term therapy to facilitate barrier development. Creating a dentinal bridge as an apical stop is the current trend. Dentin bridge formation using recent materials, which have a more predictable outcome like mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), Biodentine and other bioactive materials can show better results. When compared to standard calcium hydroxide apexification, which takes an average of 12–19 months, one-step apexification with MTA shortens the treatment period and gives promising results. In the root end apexification process, this case report documents apexification and effective healing using MTA as an apical barrier matrix in single visit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".