Assessment of different techniques in the removal of a bioceramic based filling material in long oval canals: A micro-CT Study / Wael Ali Alawneh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: iRoot SP (Innovative Bioceramix, Vancouver, Canada) was introduced as a calcium silicate-based sealer used for filling of the root canal system. However, there are concerns regarding the removal of this sealer. Aim: To evaluate the efficiency of different techniques in removing gutta-percha (GP) and iRoot SP® (Innovative Bioceramix, Vancouver, Canada) in long-oval shaped canal using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and methods: Forty-eight single-rooted mandibular premolars with single straight canals were prepared using ProTaper Next® system (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland) to size X3 (30/.06) and filled with gutta-percha and iRoot SP® (Innovative Bioceramix, Vancouver, Canada) using the hydraulic technique 2 mm short of the working length. The samples were randomly divided into four groups (n=12) in each group according to the root filling removal technique: Group 1 Protaper® Universal Retreatment system (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland), Group 2 Protaper Universal Retreatment system combined with Xylol, Group 3 Protaper Universal Retreatment system combined with Endo Success™ Retreatment Kit, ET25 tip (Acteon, England), Group 4 Protaper Universal Retreatment combined with Xylol and Endo Success™ Retreatment Kit, ET25 tip (Acteon, England). All samples were scanned before and after the removal of the root canal filling material using micro-computed tomography imaging to assess the amount of root filling materials left. Results: Results showed no statistically significant difference in the remaining root filling material between the groups (P>0.05). The apical thirds showed the highest percentage of the remaining root canal filling material compared to the middle and coronal thirds (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups in all thirds of the root (P>0.05). Results showed no statistically significant difference in the ability to achieve patency between groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: No technique proved to be superior to the others in removing bio-ceramic root filling-based material. The apical third retained a significantly iv higher percentage of its filling material compared to the middle and coronal third. Bioceramic sealers are negotiable in single, straight root canal anatomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".