ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2023
Validation of a Cox prognostic model for tooth autotransplantation.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of root canal therapy in auto-transplanted third molars: a systematic review, meta-analysis and case series report.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Validation of a Cox prognostic model for tooth autotransplantation.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to validate our Cox proportional hazards prognostic model for autotransplantation of teeth with complete root formation using prognostic index (PI) and determine whether the prognosis can be predicted. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe Protocol group, as a training data set for validation, consisted of 259 autotransplanted teeth to create a PI using the Cox model, as described previously. The Pre-protocol group, as the first validation data set, consisted of 95 autotransplanted teeth treated without a protocol. The Post-protocol group, as the second validation data set, consisted of 61 autotransplanted teeth obtained after the establishment of the prognostic model. Because four prognostic factors, including history of root canal treatment (yes), number of roots (multirooted), source of donor tooth (maxillary tooth), and duration of edentulism (≥2.5 months), were selected as a Cox prognostic model, 16 patterns of PI were constructed. First, the autotransplantated teeth in the Protocol group were divided into low- and high-risk groups respectively according to the median of PI as the cutoff value. The survival curves of low- and high-risk groups were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and tested using the log-rank test. Then, in the Pre- and Post-protocol groups, all transplanted teeth were divided into low-and high-risk teeth by the median of PI and the survival curves of low- and high- risk teeth were analyzed statistically in a similar manner.
resultsThe survival curves of the low- and high-risk groups diverged significantly in the Protocol and Post-protocol groups. In the Pre-protocol group, the curves of the low- and high-risk groups were separated, and the low-risk survival rate was improved.
conclusionsOur Cox prognostic model for autotransplantation of teeth with complete root formation was useful in predicting the prognosis by external validation using PI.
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.