Prevalence of pulp canal obliteration after traumatic dental injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to answer the following question: What is the estimated prevalence of pulp canal obliteration in subtypes of traumatic dental injury (TDI) in deciduous and permanent teeth? The searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Grey Literature, and Google Scholar, and complemented by a manual search, until April 16th, 2023. Observational studies were selected based on population, exposure, and outcome (PEO) (P, deciduous or permanent teeth; E, TDI; O, pulp canal obliteration). Two reviewers (kappa 0.90) applied the eligibility criteria, extracted qualitative data, and assessed the methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. A meta-analysis was performed using MedCalc 17.2. Thirty-four articles were selected after screening. The methodological quality was moderate to high. The estimated prevalence of pulp canal obliteration was 27.6% (95%CI: 18.7-37.7) and 21.9% (95%CI:16.0-28.4), for permanent and deciduous teeth, respectively. Considering the TDI subtypes, the prevalence of pulp canal obliteration was higher in root fractures of the permanent teeth (78.6 %, 95%CI: 62.8-90.9) and lateral luxation injuries in deciduous teeth (29.4%, 95%CI:19.1-41.0). Our review of 34 articles of moderate and high methodological quality found that the prevalence of pulpal canal obliteration ranges from 21.9% to 27.6%. Pulp canal obliteration was most frequently detected following lateral luxation injuries of the deciduous teeth and root fractures of the permanent teeth (PROSPERO CRD42020179438).
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".