RETRACTED: Survivability of endodontically treated cracked tooth: A systematic review
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Literature evidence describes various treatment protocols that have been employed for the effectiveness in improving survival and addressing associated symptoms of cracked teeth. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review investigates the survivability of endodontically treated cracked teeth and associated assessments, focusing on various treatment protocols. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were utilised for guiding the article selection framework of this review. A comprehensive search of relevant literature was conducted in May 2023 across various databases, and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. Data extraction, guided by a standardized form, captured crucial details, including study characteristics, treatment protocols, and treatment outcomes, enhancing the consistency and accuracy of information collection. Data extraction and synthesis was done by two reviewers independently. The Newcastle Ottawa tool was used to measure the methodological quality of the study. Six observational studies were eventually included. RESULTS: Mandibular molars are particularly prone to developing cracks, with research indicating a heightened susceptibility to this dental issue. Studies reveal that endodontically treated cracked teeth boast robust overall survival rates ranging from 75.8% to 100%. The risk of bias assessment, utilizing the Newcastle Ottawa scale, indicated a moderate risk across studies, highlighting the necessity for careful interpretation of findings. CONCLUSION: Endodontically treated cracked teeth show marked success in survival, with the incorporation of crowns post-endodontic treatment significantly enhancing longevity and resilience.
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 | 0.021 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".