MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391264291 · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2024.01.013

Outcome of Contemporary Nonsurgical Endodontic Retreatment: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies

2024· review· en· W4391264291 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Sabeti, Yunro Chung, Nasrin Aghamohammadi, Ava Khansari, Reza Pakzad, Amir Azarpazhooh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endodontics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryDentistryRandomized controlled trialEndodontic retreatmentConfidence intervalMEDLINESystematic reviewGrading (engineering)CohortCohort studySurgeryInternal medicineRoot canal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The success rates of NS-ReTx have varied across decades of prior research. Nonetheless, recent endodontic advances have substantially enhanced case management. This systematic review aimed to identify rigorous studies on contemporary NS-ReTx, investigating both periapical healing-evaluated strictly for complete resolution or loosely for size reduction of periapical radiolucency-and success, denoting clinical normalcy combined with periapical healing. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature from January 1988 to December 2022. Article selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 3 reviewers. Selected studies underwent risk of bias assessment, and evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analysis and meta-regression established pooled outcome rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and significant clinical prognostic factors (P < .05). RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included. Pooled periapical healing rates using strict and loose criteria were 78.8% (95% CI: 75.2-82.4) and 87.5% (95% CI: 83.8-91.2), respectively. Pooled success rates using strict and loose criteria were 78.0% (95% CI: 74.9-81.2) and 86.4% (95% CI: 82.6-90.1), respectively. Meta-regression analyses revealed significant influences on NS-ReTx outcomes (P < .05), including periapical status, lesion size, apical root filling extent, and follow-up duration. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary NS-ReTx shows encouraging outcomes, achieving periapical healing and success rates ranging from approximately 78% (strict criteria) to 87% (loose criteria). The absence of or smaller preoperative lesions, adequate root filling length, and extended follow-ups significantly improve NS-ReTx outcomes. Integrating these factors into treatment planning is pivotal for optimizing the outcome of NS-ReTx.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.018
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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