Intrusive luxation of permanent teeth: a systematic review of factors important for treatment decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a literature review and assess the current strength of evidence of the available studies and to investigate factors important for treatment choice. METHODOLOGY: Structured electronic and hand searches were performed, restricted to English records for all age groups. Only cohort studies comparing spontaneous eruption and surgical and orthodontic extrusion were assessed. Risk of bias assessment was made by the method introduced by the Cochrane collaboration and the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies, and the body of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen studies were identified, but only three were suitable for inclusion; these were not meta-analyzed because of methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Spontaneous eruption had a low failure rate of 5-12%. CONCLUSION: Given that infection can be controlled by endodontic therapy, it appears that spontaneous eruption results in the fewest complications in immature teeth, regardless of the degree of intrusion. Furthermore, there appear to be no significant differences between surgical and orthodontic extrusion in terms of adverse outcomes. Limitations of the majority of current cohort studies include selection bias (no confounding adjustment and no demonstration that outcomes were absent at the start of the study), reporting bias, and no information on whether investigators were blinded from the outcomes assessed. Furthermore, there is a serious indirectness in the current body of evidence regarding each outcome. Therefore, guidelines for treatment are currently not based on strong evidence.
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 | 0.018 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".