MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415831861 · doi:10.1016/j.identj.2025.104923

Iroot Bp Plus Repairs Retained Deciduous Molar Perforation

2025· article· en· W4415831861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Changlong Jin, Yifan Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Dental Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolarPerforationDeciduous teethRoot canalDentinDeciduousENDODONTIC PROCEDURES

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retained deciduous molars without permanent successors require preservation to prevent alveolar bone loss. This case demonstrates a minimally invasive repair of iatrogenic furcal perforation using iRoot BP Plus, emphasizing its clinical viability. A 25-year-old female presented with persistent pain in a retained mandibular second deciduous molar (tooth 75) lacking a permanent successor. Radiographs revealed a pulp chamber floor perforation. After disinfection, the perforation was sealed with iRoot BP Plus (calcium silicate bioceramic, Innovative Bioceramix, Canada) under microscopic guidance, followed by root canal obturation. The tooth remained asymptomatic with stable function over 2 years. The repair prioritized biocompatibility and sealing efficiency. iRoot BP Plus outperformed traditional materials (e.g., MTA) due to its hydraulic properties, ease of placement, and absence of tooth discoloration. Successful outcomes align with literature supporting calcium silicate bioceramics for perforation repair. This case underscores conservative management in retained deciduous teeth when anatomical and patient factors permit. iRoot BP Plus effectively repaired furcal perforation in a retained deciduous molar, offering a predictable alternative to extraction. Its clinical advantages, including technical simplicity and aesthetic preservation, highlight its role in managing adult hypodontia and preserving alveolar integrity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Dental JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207