MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410773144 · doi:10.3390/dj13060238

Impact of Clinician Experience on Intraosseous Anesthesia Outcomes in Endodontic Treatment: Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4410773144 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Lopez Gross, Mustafa Ayad Al-Sumaidaee, Michelle Wong, Sean Xinyang Feng, Pavel Cherkas, Bettina Basrani

Bibliographic record

VenueDentistry Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyCohortIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaDentistrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Although many studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of intraosseous anesthesia (IOA), the experience of clinicians administering IOA has rarely been reported. Some endodontists may never have received formal training in IOA, raising questions about whether inexperienced clinicians can achieve similar results. Although the previous studies suggest that limited experience may increase the risk of complications, the extent to which clinician experience influences IOA outcomes remains uncertain. This study sought to assess whether clinician experience affects the effectiveness, patient comfort, and safety of IOA in endodontic treatment. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 72 patients who had previously undergone endodontic treatment or retreatment for mandibular molars. Of these, 37 were treated by an endodontic resident with limited IOA experience, and 35 by an endodontist with extensive IOA experience. IOA was administered using the QuickSleeper 5 system (Dental Hi Tec, Cholet Cedex, France) as the sole anesthetic technique before the start of the endodontic treatment or retreatment. Pain assessments were recorded preoperatively (baseline), during IOA administration, and during the treatment. Statistical analyses included binomial and chi-square tests to compare the success rates and associations between the clinician experience and the IOA outcomes. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Pain during IOA administration was reported as none or mild in 98.6% of the patients, with no significant difference between the endodontist (97.2%) and resident (100%) groups (p = 0.378). Profound anesthesia was achieved in 94.1% of the cases, with no significant difference between the endodontist (96.8%) and resident (91.9%) groups (p = 0.738). Complications were rare, with two cases of perforator separation (5.4%) in the resident group; nevertheless, clinician experience was not significantly associated with complications (p = 0.553). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, clinician experience did not significantly affect the IOA outcomes, including effectiveness, patient comfort, and safety. These findings suggest that IOA can be used effectively by clinicians with different levels of experience, thus supporting its broader implementation in endodontic practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentistry JournalSame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207