MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989473004

Assessment of different techniques in the removal of a bioceramic based filling material in long oval canals: A micro-CT Study / Wael Ali Alawneh

2019· other· en· W6989473004 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Malaya Students Repository · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot canalSignificant differenceCoronal planeBioceramicRoot Canal Filling Materials
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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