Effectiveness of root canal treatment for vital pulps compared with necrotic pulps in the presence or absence of signs of periradicular pathosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative pulpal status may influence the outcomes of root canal treatment (RCTx) according to various measures used. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of RCTx of teeth with a vital pulp versus a necrotic pulp, using a range of clinical and patient-related outcomes proposed for the development of S3-level clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A search was conducted in the PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Google scholar databases and available repositories, followed by hand searches, until 29 March 2022. Clinical studies published in the English language comparing the stipulated outcomes of RCTx of teeth with vital versus necrotic pulp were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was adapted to assess study quality. Effects of pulpal status were estimated and expressed as risk ratio (RR) using fixed- and random-effect meta-analyses. The quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies published between 1961 and 2021 were included. Five studies have investigated the "tooth survival" outcome, four reported pulpal status was not a significant predictor, consistent with meta-analysis findings (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.00; n = 3). Seven studies reported pulpal status had no significant influence on postoperative pain, regardless of duration after treatment. Sixteen studies have analysed "periapical health," and 11 revealed pulpal status had no significant influence. Meta-analyses revealed the influence was not significant if preoperative periapical radiolucency was absent (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.00; n = 9) but significant if it was present (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.19; n = 11). Most studies were classified as "some concerns" (n = 17) to "low" (n = 9) risk of bias RoB. DISCUSSION: Evidence is limited and only available for three outcomes when comparing the effectiveness of RCTx in permanent teeth with vital pulp versus pulp necrosis. Nevertheless, the quality of available evidence was moderate to high. The "periapical health" data heterogeneity could be explained by preoperative radiolucency, thus RCTx was found more effective for prevention than the resolution of apical periodontitis. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the "tooth survival," "postoperative pain" and "evidence of apical radiolucency" outcomes of RCTx in teeth with vital or necrotic pulps. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42021260280).
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".