Single-visit endodontic treatment under general anaesthesia in adult and adolescent patients with special needs: a systematic review
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".