Root Development Following Bioceramic Material Application in Immature Permanent Teeth: A Case Series With 24‐Month Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Dental trauma frequently impacts children and adolescents, leading to functional and esthetic challenges. If not managed promptly and effectively, complications may ensue. Apexification with calcium silicate cement (CSC) has been proposed as a reliable treatment for necrotic immature teeth with thick dentinal walls and open apices. While CSC effectively eliminates periapical infection and improves tooth survival, its ability to promote root lengthening in immature teeth is not consistently proven. Materials and Methods: This case series highlights five instances in four children of traumatized anterior teeth with necrotic pulps treated using bioceramic putty and bioceramic sealer-a contemporary generation of CSC-in apexification procedures spanning two to three visits. Results: Radiographic follow-ups of 24 months demonstrated successful canal system sealing, periapical lesions healing, and notable root lengthening. Importantly, no posttreatment complications, such as pain or exacerbation, were observed, underscoring the efficacy and potential of these materials for managing necrotic immature permanent teeth. Conclusion: Bioceramic apical barrier is recognized as an effective treatment for managing traumatized anterior teeth. Moreover, it demonstrates promising results by facilitating the healing of necrotic immature teeth and potentially supporting root lengthening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06119477.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".