MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206942619 · doi:10.1111/iej.13690

Pulpotomy for treatment of complicated crown fractures in permanent teeth: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4206942619 on OpenAlex
Aisling Donnelly, Federico Foschi, P. McCabe, Henry F. Duncan

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIrish Research eLibrary
KeywordsPulpotomyMedicineDentistryCrown (dentistry)Permanent teethRandomized controlled trialPulp (tooth)EndodonticsPulpectomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Consensus on the treatment of choice for complicated crown fractures of teeth is limited. Recent guidance recommends vital-pulp-therapy; however, the preferred type is not specified. Higher success rates for pulpotomy compared to pulp-capping have been documented, which suggests pulpotomy may be a preferable option for complicated crown-fractures. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the success rate of pulpotomy (partial and complete) on teeth that suffered complicated crown fractures. PARTICIPANTS: patients who have suffered a complicated crown fracture to an anterior permanent tooth. INTERVENTION: pulpotomy (partial or complete). Comparator: pulp-capping or root canal treatment. OUTCOME: combined clinical and radiographic success at or after 12 months. METHODS: A systematic literature using key search terms was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL) as well as a grey literature search from inception to May 2021 and without language restricted to English. Strict inclusion criteria were applied. A standardized tool with defined criteria to assess the risk of bias in each study was used. For non-randomized comparative trials, the Robins-I tool was used while the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-comparative non-randomized studies. RESULTS: Seven retrospective clinical studies were included. The studies reported high success rates for pulpotomy with overall success ranges for partial or complete pulpotomy ranging from 75% to 96%. One study compared the success rates of pulpotomy to an alternative treatment option pulp capping (90.9% vs. 67%, respectively). Due to the lack of homogeneity in the included studies, a meta-analysis was not possible. DISCUSSION: This review highlights the limited evidence based for the current guidance on treatment of complicated crown fractures. The findings of the review indicate high success rates for pulpotomy; however, there is a moderate risk of bias and small sample sizes in the included studies with the result that the overall results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this review, the benefits and high success rates reported for partial pulpotomy suggest this procedure, rather than pulp-capping, should be considered as the treatment of choice for both immature and mature teeth that have suffered complicated crown-fractures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it