Biomechanical Characterization of Immature Roots Following Regenerative Endodontic Treatment and MTA Apexification: A Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This clinical investigation aims to determine and compare the volume, hardness, and elastic modulus of immature roots following regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) apexification. METHODS: A total of six volunteers aged between 9 and 14 years participated in the study, each providing a pair of mandibular or maxillary premolars with normal pulp and periapex planned for extraction due to orthodontic reasons. After full pulpectomy, each pair received either an MTA obturation or RET using blood clot as scaffold, followed by permanent restoration. Teeth were extracted ∼6.5 months later. Micro-computed tomographic images of teeth were taken for volumetric analyses and roots were subjected to nanoindentation physical testing. RESULTS: (223 ± 28.09) in the RET group (P < .05). The median values of hardness in all regions (apical and middle) and all sites (periphery to canal lumen) ranged from 0.56-1.04 giga pascal (GPa) in the MTA group and 0.32-0.65 GPa in the RET group (P < .05). The median values of elastic modulus in all regions (apical and middle) and all sites (periphery to canal lumen) ranged from 10.4-22.9 GPa in the MTA group and 4.8-12.1 GPa in the RET groups (P < .05). Except the hardness in apical third in the MTA group, the values of hardness and elastic modulus increased from periphery towards lumen in all other regions in both groups (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: After a period of 6.5 months RET resulted in increased root volumes, with the root structure indicative of newly formed hard tissue, which exhibited lower hardness and elastic modulus compared to those treated with MTA apexification.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".