Emergency management of acute apical periodontitis 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 emergency management of acute apical periodontitis in the permanent dentition. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 2001. These searches, combined with manual searching, yielded 1,097 citations, of which 92 were relevant. Independent application of inclusion criteria by 2 teams of reviewers yielded 15 eligible randomized controlled trials. Data on population, interventions, outcomes (pain relief or change in intensity of pain as reported by patients or clinicians) and methodological quality were determined by independent duplicate review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Meta-analysis showed that pre-emptive analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) in conjunction with pulpectomy provided a significant benefit (weighted mean difference -11.70, 95% confidence interval -22.84 to -0.56). Three interventions did not show significant benefit: systemic antibiotics, intracanal treatment with a steroid-antibiotic combination, and trephination through attached gingiva. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of pain associated with acute apical periodontitis, there is strong evidence to support the use of systemic NSAIDs in conjunction with nonsurgical endodontics. The use of antibiotics is not recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".