Healing Outcomes of Through‐And‐Through Bone Defects in Periapical Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through-and-through (TAT) cortical plate defects present a challenge in periapical surgery, influencing treatment outcomes. This study investigates whether guided regenerative procedures (GRPs) enhance cortical plate healing and overall success compared to non-GRP treatments in TAT lesions. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Wiley Cochrane Library, and Dental and Oral Science. Studies assessing endodontically treated teeth with TAT lesions via Cone Beam Computed Tomography were included. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Five studies met inclusion criteria, with four included in meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed in cortical plate healing (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.12-2.39; p = 0.40) or treatment success (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.09-1.39; p = 0.14) between GRPs and non-GRPs. Findings suggest that GRPs do not significantly improve healing in TAT lesions, highlighting the need for further studies with larger sample sizes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".