Emergency management of acute apical abscesses in the permanent dentition: a systematic review of the literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of interventions used in the management of acute apical abscess in the permanent dentition. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2002. These searches, combined with manual searching, yielded 85 citations, of which 35 were relevant. Independent application of inclusion criteria by 3 reviewers yielded 8 eligible randomized controlled studies. Data on population, interventions, outcomes (reduction of pain or swelling or both, as reported by patients or clinicians) and methodological quality were determined by independent triplicate review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: All papers included in the meta-analysis compared an antibiotic with an active control, a placebo or no pharmacotherapy as an adjunct for patients who had received concomitant therapy (i.e., incision and drainage, endodontic therapy or extraction). The 8 trials were randomized; in 3 of these, the method of randomization was described and appropriate. Five studies were double-blinded, and 2 of these described the method of blinding. Four trials described withdrawals, but none included an intention-to-treat analysis. Six studies compared 2 antibiotics. For the outcomes "absence of infection"and "absence of pain" the pooled odds ratios (ORs) were not statistically significant; for the outcome "absence of pain and infection," 3 studies showed an equivalent treatment effect in both treatment and control groups. One open-label study (with a quality score of 2) showed a result favouring azithromycin over co-amoxiclav (OR 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.96). Two studies compared adjunctive antibiotic therapy with placebo; no benefit to patients was demonstrated with this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of localized acute apical abscess in the permanent dentition, the abscess should be drained through a pulpectomy or incision and drainage. This analysis indicated that antibiotics are of no additional benefit. In the event of systemic complications (e.g., fever, lymphadenopathy or cellulitis), or for an immunocompromised patient, antibiotics may be prescribed in addition to drainage of the tooth.
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 | 0.021 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".