A Scoping Review of 4 Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies—Part 1: Process and General Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite initiatives to standardize reports, variances in study design, outcomes assessed, and tools used are persistent in the literature. This review scoped the existing literature on endodontic outcome studies for future development of core outcome sets. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 including patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment (NS-RCT), retreatment (NS-ReTx), or apexification was performed. Abstracted data were reported through descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 9957 studies screened, 354 were included. An increase in the quantity of endodontic outcome publications and levels of evidence in their study design was noted over the past 4 decades. Although 41% of the studies included participants 26-50 years of age, literature including participants >50 years old has increased since 2000. Apexification and NS-ReTx were mostly provided by specialists and postgraduate students. The most common follow-up period was 2-5 years (35%), and most randomized controlled trials (58%) reported follow-up times <1 year. Multiple-visit treatment was most common in apexification studies (85%). Deficiency, inconsistency, and ambiguity were observed across many reports. CONCLUSIONS: NS-ReTx and NS-RCT/NS-ReTx studies have increased over the past 2 decades, particularly those focusing on molars and patients >50 years old. Despite the progress in endodontic research, heterogeneity in reporting styles yields considerable limitations, particularly data standardization challenges and inconsistencies in methods and results reporting. This scoping review highlighted the state of available research and supported the development of standardized guidelines for future investigations.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".