Differences in clinical approaches of endodontists and general dentists when performing non‐surgical root canal treatment: A prospective cohort study from the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network <scp>PREDICT</scp> Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Information regarding differences between general dentists (GDs) and endodontists in their daily practices is limited. The aim of this prospective cohort clinical study was to compare the details of clinical approaches of GDs and endodontists when performing non-surgical root canal treatments (NSRCT). METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted among 153 practitioners (104 GDs and 49 endodontists) in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network in the United States who performed NSRCT on at least one of 1705 patients. Practitioners completed postoperative forms to document procedural data. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for the potential effect of confounders. Two different multivariable models were tested to eliminate the impact of unstable variables. RESULTS: or chlorhexidine irrigations, ultrasonic/sonic irrigant activation, electronic apex locator and radiographs for working length determination, warm vertical condensation and lateral condensation techniques for obturation, report adequately dense obturation without voids, and to complete NSRCT in a single visit (p ≤ .01). Endodontists were significantly less likely to use lubricants and to report unacceptable obturation length (≥2 mm short or extended beyond the radiographic apex) (p ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Based on actual clinical data, this study observed major differences between GDs and endodontists in their clinical approaches when performing NSRCTs. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of these differences on the outcome of NSRCTs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".