Transient Apical Breakdown: Incidence, Pathogenesis, and Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Transient apical breakdown (TAB) is a phenomenon that indicates temporary apical periodontal destruction and root resorption after tooth luxation injuries, followed by the healing process of the dental pulp. Andreasen in 1986, reported that TAB was seen in approximately 4.2% of all luxation injuries. However, there have been no reports thereafter on the types and frequency of the luxation traumatic injuries in which TAB occurs. Therefore, this retrospective study was aimed to assess the incidence and pathogenesis of dental trauma-induced TAB and to suggest a possible mechanism of subsequent healing based on a series of cases. METHODS: Data analysis included mature teeth (n = 56) of 49 patients aged 9-30 years who presented in a private dental office over a period of 10 years (2012-2022) to investigate the incidence and healing sequala of TAB. RESULTS: TAB was observed in 43.8% of subluxation, 62.5% of extrusive luxation, and 75% of lateral luxation injuries. The average age of patients who developed TAB was 14.5 years, ranging from 9 to 28 years old. CONCLUSIONS: TAB can be expected in many cases of luxation injuries with minimal dislocation. Therefore, mild injuries (subluxation, extrusion, and lateral luxation), may exhibit spontaneous healing, recovery of dark discoloration of the crown, disappearance of a periapical radiolucent lesion and return to normal response to EPT as long as 12 months after the traumatic injury. Thus, a decision to perform endodontic treatment in these cases might be postponed until clear evidence for an infection exists.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".