Critical Factors Affecting Outcomes of Endodontic Microsurgery: A Retrospective Japanese Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critically important preoperative and intraoperative factors that affect the success of endodontic microsurgery (EMS) in Japanese patients are not defined. We conducted a retrospective study that analyzed treatment outcomes for 46 teeth in 46 Japanese patients. Treatment was provided between March 2013 and March 2015. All patients were evaluated after one year, the shortest time period over which treatment outcomes after apicoectomy could be evaluated and in which there were complete records for the recruited patient population. Healing was assessed on the basis of clinical symptoms and radiographs. With the use of a binary logistic regression model to quantify success, we estimated the effects of patient age, sex, dental arch, lesion size, lesion type, preoperative root canal treatment, the presence or absence of a post core, and the presence or absence of an isthmus on the surgically prepared dentine surface. The overall success for EMS was 93.5% after one year; failures comprised 6.5%. Successful outcomes were higher (p = 0.04) for maxillary teeth than for mandibular teeth. Success was higher (p = 0.019) for patients who received root canal instrumentation prior to EMS. Age, sex, lesion size, lesion type, the presence or absence of a post core, and the presence or absence of a root canal isthmus had no effect (p > 0.2) on success. We conclude that the percentage of successful outcomes after EMS treatment for Japanese patients presenting with periapical periodontitis is very high after one year and that success is influenced strongly by the dental arch and preoperative root canal instrumentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".