Radiographic comparison of the extent of orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in vital and root-filled teeth: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to critically analyse the available scientific literature radiographically comparing the incidence of orthodontically induced external apical root resorption (OIEARR) in human root-filled and vital teeth. METHODS: Several electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar) were searched without limits, with the assistance of a senior librarian specialized in Health Sciences database searches. Human, in vivo studies that radiographically compared root resorption following fixed orthodontic treatment in root-filled and vital teeth were selected for full article review. Additionally, the bibliographies of the finally selected articles were hand searched to identify any relevant publications that were not identified by electronic searches. The lowest levels of evidence accepted for inclusion were case controls or cohort studies. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted data from selected studies. RESULTS: A total of 165 original articles were identified from electronic database searches and 2 from hand searches. Once selection criteria were applied, only four articles met all inclusion criteria, and individual analysis of the selected articles was undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, root-filled teeth do not appear to be more susceptible to OIEARR than their analogous vital teeth.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".