Occurrence and Risk Factors of Dental Root Perforations: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic root perforations are an unfortunate accident that can occur during dental treatment and can lead to peri-radicular damage, poor treatment outcome and extraction of the tooth. The aim of this review was to analyse the occurrence and risk factors for root perforation. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Medline and SCOPUS in May 2019. Additional literature was identified through a hand search. Clinical studies enrolling adults with permanent dentition were included. Single case studies and case reports were excluded. Duplicate articles were removed, titles and abstracts were screened and studies were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Data were collected and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. RESULTS: A total of 916 articles were screened, from which 47 full-text articles were analysed and 22 articles were finally included in the study. The data were analysed qualitatively because meta-analysis could not be conducted owing to lack of heterogeneity among the studies. Most of the articles were retrospective cross-sectional studies on root canal treatments performed by undergraduate students. The occurrence of perforation ranged from 0.6% to 17.6%. Risk factors for perforation included experience of the practitioner, tooth type, and tooth morphology. The risk of bias in most of the studies included was assessed as low. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests a need for additional studies on the risk factors associated with iatrogenic root perforation as the current literature is insufficient. Educational efforts in dental schools should address the issue of perforations and provide more clinical experience prior to graduation in order to improve the clinical skills of graduates.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".