Occurrence and Risk Factors of Dental Root Perforations: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it