Photomechanical Investigation on the Impact of Endodontic Cavity Design on the Biomechanical Response in Mandibular Posterior Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) facilitates canal preparation, but may increase susceptibility to root fracture; conservative endodontic cavities (CEC) aim to preserve tooth structure to maintain the structural integrity of root-filled teeth. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of access cavity design and the degree of pulp chamber root removal on the microstrain distribution patterns under different levels of functional loading using digital moiré interferometry. METHODS: Twelve extracted human teeth (n = 12) were included, comprising of mandibular premolars (n = 6) and mandibular first molars (n = 6). Specimens were subjected to physiologic levels of compressive loading ranging from 10 to 50 N for each group. Digital moiré interferometry fringe patterns were acquired three times for each pecimen: prior to endodontic cavity preparation (control group (CG)), after conservative endodontic cavity preparation (CEC), and following traditional endodontic cavity preparation (TEC). The acquired fringe patterns were used to determine the microstrain distribution at the coronal and cervical dentin. The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using one-way ANOVA and T-tests (P < .05). RESULTS: The intact crowns of CG teeth showed significantly less microstrain, when compared to CEC and TEC with a distinct shift in coronal microstrain in both CEC and TEC groups. There were significant differences between both the coronal and cervical microstrain in the CG, CEC, and TEC groups. CONCLUSIONS: The roof of the pulp chamber contributes to a distinct biomechanical response in posterior teeth. The microstrain at the coronal and cervical level increased significantly following de-roofing of the pulp chamber in both CEC and TEC groups, with the TEC resulting in higher coronal microstrain compared to CEC group.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".