MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The use of an intra‐oral injection of ketorolac in the treatment of irreversible pulpitis

2005· article· en· W2041866419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A C Mellor, M. L. Dorman, N M Girdler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetorolacPulpitisMedicineDentistryAnesthesiaAnalgesic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To examine whether an intra-oral injection of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ketorolac), in association with conventional local anaesthetic techniques, would improve the pulp extirpation rate in teeth with irreversible pulpitis. METHODOLOGY: A two group double-blind clinical trial was undertaken in the Dental Casualty Department of the University of Manchester School of Dentistry. Patients were randomly allocated to either the test or control group. The test group received an intra-oral injection of ketorolac (30 mg in 1 mL) in the buccal sulcus adjacent to the tooth being treated. After an interval of 15 min, they then received 2.2 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 80 000 epinephrine by buccal infiltration in the maxilla or by inferior dental block in the mandible. The control group received an intra-oral injection of normal saline (1 mL) in the buccal sulcus adjacent to the tooth being treated, followed by the same local anaesthetic regime as the test group after the 15 min interval. Fifteen minutes after the local anaesthetic injections, pulp extirpation was attempted. All patients completed the short-form McGill pain questionnaire prior to treatment and completed identical questionnaires at 6 and 24 h after treatment. RESULTS: The study protocol set the number of patients to be treated at twenty. However, as the study progressed it became apparent that the intra-oral injection of ketorolac caused significant pain to four of the five patients who received it; therefore the study was terminated after ten patients had been treated. The results from the patients treated showed no significant difference in the pulp extirpation rate between the test and control groups. However, patients with higher pain scores at baseline were less likely to have the pulp completely extirpated, irrespective of whether they were in the test or control group. Pain scores for all patients decreased significantly from baseline to 24 h. CONCLUSION: An intra-oral injection of ketorolac did not improve the pulp extirpation rate in a small group of patients with irreversible pulpitis compared with a placebo. In addition, it was associated with such significant pain on injection that it cannot be recommended as a treatment in this situation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Endodontic JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207