ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2020
Prevalence of Enamel Defects in Premolars Whose Predecessors Were Treated with Extractions or Antibiotic Paste.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Micro-CT characterisation of the furcation area in human primary molars.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- Developmental Defect of Enamel in Permanent Teeth Associated With Chronic Endodontic Abscess in Deciduous Teeth: A Retrospective Study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the prevalence of developmental defects of the enamel (DDE) in premolars whose infected predecessors were submitted to pulp therapy with antibiotic paste or extractions due to pulp necrosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study with a consecutive sample consisting of children and adolescents who presented with fully erupted premolars, was evaluated. Data were collected by dental examinations, in which the modified DDE index was applied. Dental records were evaluated and three groups of premolars were determined according to the clinical history of predecessors: GCTZ: with pulp necrosis and treated with CTZ (chloramphenicol, tetracycline, zinc oxide and eugenol) paste; GE: with pulp necrosis and treated by extraction; GH: healthy and physiologically exfoliated. Descriptive analysis and a logistic regression (p <0.05) were performed.
resultsThe study included 1017 premolars, DDE was present in 22.5%. Premolars belonging to the GE group presented higher odds of DDE (odds ratio (OR) = 3.52, 95% CI:2.29-5.40) than those of GCTZ group (OR = 2.43, 95% CI:1.51-3.91) and GH group (p <0.01). Enamel defects were more frequent in maxillary premolars (OR = 3.22, 95% CI:1.65-6.27, OR = 3.39, 95% CI:1.67-6.90, OR = 2.90, 95% CI:1.48-5.66 and OR = 3.10, 95% CI:1.54-6.23).
conclusionsThe prevalence of enamel defects was higher in premolars whose predecessors were removed because of necrosis, followed by those treated with CTZ paste and those that were healthy by the time exfoliation occurred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.