Occurrence and Risk Factors of Dental Root Perforations: A Systematic Review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic root perforations are an unfortunate accident that can occur during dental treatment and can lead to peri-radicular damage, poor treatment outcome and extraction of the tooth. The aim of this review was to analyse the occurrence and risk factors for root perforation. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Medline and SCOPUS in May 2019. Additional literature was identified through a hand search. Clinical studies enrolling adults with permanent dentition were included. Single case studies and case reports were excluded. Duplicate articles were removed, titles and abstracts were screened and studies were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Data were collected and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. RESULTS: A total of 916 articles were screened, from which 47 full-text articles were analysed and 22 articles were finally included in the study. The data were analysed qualitatively because meta-analysis could not be conducted owing to lack of heterogeneity among the studies. Most of the articles were retrospective cross-sectional studies on root canal treatments performed by undergraduate students. The occurrence of perforation ranged from 0.6% to 17.6%. Risk factors for perforation included experience of the practitioner, tooth type, and tooth morphology. The risk of bias in most of the studies included was assessed as low. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests a need for additional studies on the risk factors associated with iatrogenic root perforation as the current literature is insufficient. Educational efforts in dental schools should address the issue of perforations and provide more clinical experience prior to graduation in order to improve the clinical skills of graduates.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle