Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restoring vital teeth with indirect restorations may threaten dental pulp integrity. However, the incidence of and influential factors on pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis in such teeth are still unknown. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the incidence of and influential factors on pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis of vital teeth following indirect restorations. METHODS: The search was conducted in five databases, using MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Eligible clinical trials and cohort studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The overall incidences of pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup meta-analyses were also performed to determine the potential influencing factors for pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool. RESULTS: A total of 5,814 studies were identified, of which 37 were included in the meta-analysis. The overall incidences of pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations were determined to be 5.02% and 3.63%, respectively. All studies were assessed as having a moderate-low risk of bias. The incidence of pulp necrosis following indirect restorations increased when the pulp status was objectively assessed (thermal/electrical testing). The presence of pre-operative caries or restorations, treatment of anterior teeth, temporization for more than two weeks, and cementation with eugenol-free temporary cement, all increased this incidence. Final impression with polyether and permanent cementation with glass ionomer cement both increased the incidence of pulp necrosis. Longer follow-up periods (> 10 years) and treatment provided by undergraduate students or general practitioners were also factors that increased this incidence. On the other hand, the incidence of periapical pathosis increased when teeth were restored with fixed partial dentures, the bone level was < 35%, and the follow-up was > 10 years. The certainty of the evidence overall was assessed as low. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidences of pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations remain low, many factors affect these incidences that should thus be considered when planning indirect restorations on vital teeth. DATABASE REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020218378).
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| 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".