Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36143301›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022

Guided Endodontics: Static vs. Dynamic Computer-Aided Techniques-A Literature Review.

Diana Ribeiro, Eva Reis, Joana A Marques, Rui I Falacho, Paulo J Palma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Guided Endodontic Surgery: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Diana RibeiroDentistry Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.
Eva ReisDentistry Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.
Joana A MarquesInstitute of Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5210-6155
Rui I FalachoCenter for Innovation and Research in Oral Sciences (CIROS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7099-8871
Paulo J PalmaInstitute of Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4730-8072

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: access cavity preparation is the first stage of non-surgical endodontic treatment. The inaccuracy of this step may lead to numerous intraoperative complications, which impair the root canal treatment's prognosis and therefore the tooth's survival. Guided endodontics, meaning computer-aided static (SN) and dynamic navigation (DN) techniques, has recently emerged as a new approach for root canal location in complex cases. This review aims to compare SN and DN guided endodontics' techniques in non-surgical endodontic treatment. (2) Methods: an electronic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases until October 2021. Studies were restricted by language (English, Spanish and Portuguese) and year of publication (from 2011 to 2021). (3) Results: a total of 449, 168 and 32 articles were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, respectively, after the initial search. Of the 649 articles, 134 duplicates were discarded. In this case, 67 articles were selected after title and abstract screening, of which 60 were assessed for eligibility through full-text analysis, with one article being excluded. Four cross-references were added. Thus, 63 studies were included. (4) Conclusions: guided endodontics procedures present minimally invasive and accurate techniques which allow for highly predictable root canal location, greater tooth structure preservation and lower risk of iatrogenic damage, mainly when performed by less experienced operators. Both SN and DN approaches exhibit different advantages and disadvantages that make them useful in distinct clinical scenarios.

Indexed as

access cavitycomputer-aidedcone-beam computed tomographydynamic navigationendodonticsguided endodonticsprinted templateroot canal treatment

Identifiers

PMID36143301
PMCPMC9501573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.