The tooth survival of non‐surgical root‐filled posterior teeth and the associated prognostic tooth‐related factors: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Analysis of the survival of root-filled posterior teeth and the associated prognostic tooth-related factors will enable clinicians to predict the outcome of root canal treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate (i) the survival of root-filled posterior teeth and (ii) the tooth-related factors that may affect their survival. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials, comparative studies and observational studies assessing survival rates of root-filled posterior teeth with a minimum 4-year follow-up period were identified through an electronic search of the following databases up to January 2023: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline via PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Web of Science and NIHR centre for reviews and dissemination. Two reviewers (SP and ML) independently selected the final studies based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials were used to assess the risk of bias. Pooled weighted survival rates were analysed using a random effects meta-analysis model using DerSimonean and Laird methods. Descriptive analysis of studies describing any prognostic tooth-related factors was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 72 studies identified, data from 20 studies were included in the survival meta-analysis, and data from 13 of these studies were included in the descriptive analysis of tooth-related factors; 12 studies were retrospective, 7 were prospective, and one was a randomized control trial. The pooled survival rates at 4-7 years and 8-20 years of root-filled posterior teeth regardless of tooth type was 91% (95% CI, 0.85; 0.95) and 87% (95% CI, 0.77; 0.93), respectively. The prognostic tooth-related factors mentioned in the included studies were (i) remaining coronal tooth structure, (ii) ferrule, (iii) crown-to-root ratio (iv) tooth type and location (v) periodontal disease (vi) proximal contacts and (vii) cracks. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis suggests that root canal treatment has a high medium to long term survival outcome. The narrative summary identified 7 factors that affect tooth survival. However, there is a paucity of evidence, and more research is needed in this area. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021227213.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".