Synchronized Microbubble-photodynamic Activation (SYMPA) to Disinfect Minimally Prepared Root Canals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of a novel root canal irrigation strategy using synchronized microbubble-photodynamic activation (SYMPA) in a minimally prepared single canal. Single canal mandibular incisors were inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis for 3 weeks, and randomly allocated to 4 groups based on different irrigation protocols: control (saline), conventional needle irrigation (CI), ultrasonic irrigation (UI), and SYMPA. The first three groups were instrumented to size 25.07v (WaveOne Gold Primary) and SYMPA group was minimally prepared to size 20.07v (WaveOne Gold Small, Dentsply Sirona, Tulsa, OK). The apical 5mm was resected for microbiological assessment using culture technique (colony-forming-unit (CFU)), ATP-based viability assay (relative luminescence units (RLU)), and percentage of live bacteria using confocal-laser-scanning-microscopy (CLSM). Log CFU from UI (2.37 0.66), and SYMPA (2.21 0.86) showed significant microbial reduction compared to control and CI. There was a significant reduction in metabolic activity (RLU) in SYMPA (415.25 329.51) and UI (619.08 352.78) compared to control (1213.2 880.03) (p <.05). The percentage of live bacteria was significantly lower in SYMPA, and UI compared to control and CI. Although higher microbial reduction was observed in SYMPA when compared to UI, there was no statistical significance (p >.05). SYMPA in minimally prepared canals showed significant antimicrobial efficacy. This novel irrigation protocol using SYMPA could be an effective disinfection strategy for minimally prepared root canals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".