Radiopacity of nonmetallic root canal posts.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study determined the radiopacity of a group of nonmetallic posts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four specimens were cut from 7 posts, and tooth sections were cut from extracted teeth. Radiographic images of all specimens along with an aluminum step wedge were obtained on occlusal films. Optical density readings for each specimen image were determined with a transmission densitometer. Radiopacity values were subsequently calculated as equivalents of aluminum thickness. RESULTS: Analysis of variance revealed significant differences in radiopacity values among the posts (P < .001). One nonmetallic post that was made of zirconium had a radiopacity value significantly greater than that of enamel. Another, made of glass fibers, acrylic resin, and fillers, had a radiopacity that was greater than that of dentin but smaller than that of enamel. The remaining 3 nonmetallic posts had radiopacity values lower than dentin. CONCLUSION: The 3 posts with radiopacity that was lower than dentin cannot be considered sufficiently radiopaque.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".