Diode LASER-MTA pulpotomy for the treatment of pulpally involved human primary teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. Investigate whether a diode LASER pulpotomy with MTA sealing is an acceptable alternative to the formocresol-ZOE pulpotomy in human primary teeth. Methods. Randomized, single blind study was used with a sample of 16 children aged 3 to 8 years. Twenty-six pairs of teeth were selected based on clinical and radiographic criteria. One tooth from each pair was randomly assigned to either the LASER-MTA group or the formocresol-ZOE group. Teeth were followed up at 2.3, 5.2, 9.5 and 15.7 months. Primary investigator and a blinded clinician assessed radiographs. Failures were extracted and photographed. Conclusions. LASER-MTA pulpotomy displayed reduced radiographic success compared to formocresol-ZOE pulpotomy. These results were not statistically significant. Results. All teeth were clinically sound at each follow-up. Seven LASER-MTA treated teeth were radiographic failures compared to 3 formocresol-ZOE treated teeth. Results were not significant (p> 0.05). Photographic analysis revealed technique errors and signs of a disease process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".