A micro-CT study of the pulp cavity morphology of maxillary fourth premolar teeth in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The objectives of the present study were (1) to describe the anatomy of the endodontic system of the dog's maxillary fourth premolar tooth (MxPM4) in relation to the morphology of the crown, (2) to determine if variations of the endodontic system exist, and (3) to look at the implications for endodontic treatment. Methods: Ten MxPM4 were harvested en bloc and scanned using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Results: The morphology of the pulp chamber mostly corresponded with the shape of the crown. Three pulp horns were clearly visible and related to the paracone, the metacone, and the metastyle. Nevertheless, the pulp horns of the metacone and metastyle could be fused, partially fused or distinct. Other pulp projections were also present, but rarely, in the parastyle, the protocone, and the plesioconule. All teeth showed a noticeable angulation of an average of 150 degrees at the coronal third of the mesiopalatal canal. Discussion: Thus, the most common transcoronal approach for root canal treatment does not allow a straight access to the apex. There were also minor variations in the locations of the canal orifices. This first micro-CT study of the MxPM4 in dogs showed anatomical features and variations of the pulp cavity that have not been described before.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".