Single-visit endodontic treatment under general anaesthesia in adult and adolescent patients with special needs: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve dental care for individuals with special needs, it is crucial to understand the effectiveness of endodontic treatments under general anaesthesia. This systematic review explores the feasibility, prognostic factors, and outcomes of root canal treatment and pulpotomy performed under general anaesthesia in adult and adolescent patients with special needs. A comprehensive search of Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases was conducted until July 2024. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Among the 637 initially identified studies, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Treatment outcomes, radiographic findings, and clinical survival rates were evaluated. Root canal treatment success rates ranged from 81.5 to 90% over a minimum observation period of 12 months. Survival rates varied from 87.7% (9 year cumulative survival rate) to 89.8% (5 year survival rate). One study showed a lower failure risk in endodontic treatment under general anaesthesia compared to local anaesthesia. Another study found no significant difference in root canal treatment quality between general and local anaesthesia. Influencing factors identified by multivariate regression analyses included soft diet, periodontal status, oral hygiene status, pulp vitality, and length of root canal filling. Limited evidence suggests that endodontic treatment under general anaesthesia is feasible and can yield favourable outcomes in patients with special needs. However, the scarcity of studies and concerns about publication bias and methodological limitations emphasize the need for further research.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it