A recall program for the outcome of conventional root canal treatment performed in a teaching hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the long-term survival and the prognostic factors of endodontic treatments performed in a dental teaching hospital. The aim was to calculate the probabilities of success or failure according to the follow-up extent and to assess the time allowed for a complete periapical healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 185 teeth were re-examined 1-4 years after treatment. The outcome was assessed on the basis of radiographic and clinical criteria as success, uncertain or failure. A survival analysis using the Cox model was used (i) to explore tooth survival and periapical healing over the time and (ii) to highlight the predictive factors of treatment outcome. RESULTS: After 2 years, the appearance of an apical periodontitis remained lower than 3.5%, whereas only 22.8% of periapical healed cases were notified. The prognosis factors are: (i) for teeth with initial healthy periapical conditions, coronal leakage (p = 0.002) with the higher risk of failure (RR = 19.77), absence of correspondence filling length/shaping = 0.026), type of teeth (p = 0.041) and (ii) for teeth with apical periodontitis, number of root canals (p = 0.000,91), correspondence filling length/shaping length (p = 0.017) and over-filling (p = 0.09). New periapical lesions or tooth loss were recorded after 2 years. Half of the successful cases of periapical healing were observed during the follow-up from 2-4 years. CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study shows that coronal leakage is responsible for late failure and that periapical healing is long to achieve. Therefore, endodontic treatments may require a follow-up of over 2 years.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".