Success Rate of Treatments Provided for Early Childhood Caries under General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the success rate of various treatments provided under general anesthesia for early childhood caries (ECC) over three-year follow-up period. METHODS: ECC children no older than 72 months at the time of dental surgery, who had completed a three-year follow-up, were included. The success rate of every treatment was evaluated. The longevity of each treatment and significant factors associated with failures were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 818 children (55.8 percent were males with a mean age of 46.2±13.4 months old) were included. Of these, 32.9 percent had restored teeth that required further treatment during the three-year follow-up. Amalgam restorations and stainless steel crowns (SSCs) showed significantly longer survival than composite restorations in all types of restorations (P<.05). The survival rate of both indirect pulp capping and pulpotomies were the same (P=0.234), and they were significantly higher than that for pulpectomies (P=0.001, P=0.039, respectively). The lower lingual holding arch (LLHA) had a significantly lower survival rate than other space maintainers (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SSCs and amalgam restorations were clinically more successful and had better survival times than composite restorations. The survival rate for the LLHA was low compared to other space maintainers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".