MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213200837 · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2022.02.001

Factors Associated with the Need for a Primary Endodontic Treatment after Single-Unit Crown Cementation: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

2022· article· en· W4213200837 on OpenAlexaff
Kelsey Won, Yuli Berlin‐Broner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endodontics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryCementation (geology)Crown (dentistry)MedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyOrthodonticsSurgeryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This case-control study aimed to identify factors associated with an increased risk for endodontic treatment after single-unit crown cementation and to describe the timeline of such events. METHODS: After evaluating the electronic records of all single-unit crowns placed on nonendodontically treated teeth between 1999 and 2019 and excluding teeth with preexisting questionable or confirmed endodontic disease, "cases" were identified as teeth requiring primary endodontic treatment after crown cementation. This was not examined in the current study because the cases and controls were matched by tooth type. RESULTS: Overall, 69 teeth without any suspected or confirmed past endodontic disease required an endodontic intervention after crown cementation. The mean number ± standard deviation of restorations in a tooth before crown cementation was significantly higher among the cases than the matched controls (2.16 ± 0.99 vs 0.78 ± 0.78, P < .05). Teeth with ≥2 and ≥3 previous restorations had an almost 4 (odds ratio = 3.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-9.29; P < .05) and almost 6 (odds ratio = 5.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.230-28.95; P < .05) times higher risk, respectively, for endodontic treatment after crown cementation compared with teeth with ≤1 restoration present before crown cementation. The majority (65%, n = 45) of teeth in the cases group required endodontic treatment during the first 3 years after crown cementation. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of multiple restorations at the time of crown cementation was identified as a significant predictive factor for the need for endodontic treatment after crown cementation in teeth with no preexisting questionable or confirmed endodontic disease. Therefore, clinicians should be aware and inform patients about the increased risk of primary endodontic treatment in teeth with a history of more than 1 restoration, especially during the first 3 years after permanent crown cementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndodonticsSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207