Minimally Intervention Treatment For Root Fracture With Pulp Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case report describes a minimal intervention treatment for root fracture with pulp exposure due to a complicated crown-root fracture in a young permanent incisor. An 11-year-old girl presented to the Hospital of Stomatology having suffered an injury to her maxillary right central incisor (tooth #11) 4h. A clinical examination revealed a complicated crown-root fracture with grade I∼II mobility. Electric pulp testing and cold testing revealed a positive response. Radiographic examinations revealed a horizontal the apical one-third fracture. Tooth#11 was treated by partial pulpotomy using iRoot BP Plus (Innovative Bioceramix Inc, Vancouver, Canada) and fragment reattachment. At the 24-month follow-up after treatment, tooth #11 was still vital and functional without clinical and radiographic signs and symptoms. There are limited reports on the treatment of multiple combined tooth fractures which often result in worse outcomes. However, the apparent success was presented in this case by pulpotomy and fragment reattachment. Minimal intervention treatment repaired biological tissues and reduced the risk of pulp infection, thereby creating favorable conditions for root fracture healing. It provides an alternative and effective solution to expensive and complex endodontic and restorative treatments for root fracture with pulp exposure. Minimal intervention treatment with partial pulpotomy and fragment reattachment can be a viable treatment option for root fracture combined with pulp exposure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".