Effect of splinting on outcomes of replantation of avulsed permanent teeth in children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tooth avulsion is the complete displacement of a tooth from its socket and is a severe traumatic dental injury. Stabilization using splints is essential for healing. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal splint type or duration. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different splinting methods and durations on the outcomes of replanted avulsed permanent teeth in pediatric patients, with the goal of informing evidence-based clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023414888). A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted. Eligible studies were selected based on the predefined criteria, and data extraction was carried out using a pretested form. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan (Version 5.4) where appropriate, and the GRADE approach was applied to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: From 734 identified records, 7 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 4 in the meta-analysis, encompassing 708 participants and 975 avulsed teeth. Replanted teeth were stabilized with various splint types and durations. While trends supported the use of flexible splints and shorter durations for better periodontal and pulp outcomes, most findings lacked statistical significance. GRADE analysis rated the overall evidence as very low. CONCLUSION: Current evidence tentatively supports the International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines favoring flexible, short-term splinting, but high-quality research is needed to establish definitive protocols.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".