Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34916646›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2021

Does bidirectional splinting improve outcomes in cracked teeth with reversible pulpitis?

William Holme

Erratum issuedAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

William HolmeTowngate Dental Practice, Leyland, Lancashire, UK. williamholme@me.com.
Leeds Dental Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim To investigate the success rate of 'bidirectional' splinting - both internal and external - of teeth with longitudinal cracks and reversible pulpitis, as well as to identify any signs or symptoms that could give a prognostic indication of success.Design Cohort study.Cohort selection Thirty-four teeth from 33 patients visiting the Department of Conservative Dentistry at the Yonsei University Dental Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, between June 2016 and November 2017, diagnosed with longitudinal cracked teeth with reversible pulpitis. Teeth with signs of pulp necrosis, irreversible pulpitis or other types of longitudinal cracks were excluded.Data analysis These teeth were treated by a systematic protocol of initial external splinting with a metal band, crack removal and internal splinting with composite resin, placement of a temporary crown, before a final permanent crown. Symptoms and vitality were assessed at every stage and root canal treatment provided where deemed necessary. The teeth were then followed up for up to four years to assess tooth survival and pulp vitality.Results Accounting for five dropouts during the treatment protocol, 29 teeth reached at least a one-year recall. Of these, 21 (72%) had pulp survival, eight (28%) had required root canal treatment - six of those before final crown cementation - and zero teeth required extraction (100% survival rate). Cracked teeth without initial tenderness to percussion showed a 94% pulp survival rate, while those with tenderness had only a 46% pulp survival rate.Conclusions A systematic approach to treating cracked teeth with reversible pulpitis should be utilised to maintain tooth vitality and survival. Using a bidirectional splinting method provides good outcomes for these teeth. Tenderness to percussion is a significant prognostic indicator of pulp vitality and whether root canal treatment should be initiated.

Indexed as

Cracked Tooth SyndromePulpitisCohort StudiesDental Pulp NecrosisHumansRoot Canal Therapy

Identifiers

PMID34916646
OpenAlexW4200519231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.