Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38116330›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2023

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Prevalence of Procedural Errors in Maxillary Posterior Teeth.

Ahmad Nouroloyouni, Yousef Nazi, Hesam Mikaieli Xiavi, Sara Noorolouny, Maryam Kuzekanani, Gianluca Plotino, James Laurence Walsh, Behzad Sheikhfaal, Rashin Alyali, Elham Tavakkol

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Ahmad NouroloyouniDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Ardabil University of Medical Science, Ardabil, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3016-4861
Yousef NaziDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Ardabil University of Medical Science, Ardabil, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5014-4465
Hesam Mikaieli XiaviDepartment of Radiology, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9020-7173
Sara NoorolounyDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Ardabil University of Medical Science, Ardabil, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4678-9345
Maryam KuzekananiEndodontology Research Center, Department Of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1725-191X
Gianluca PlotinoPrivate Practice, Grande Plotino & Torsello Studio di Odontoiatria, 00187 Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3003-8029
James Laurence WalshUQ Oral Health Centre, School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5874-5687
Behzad SheikhfaalDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Science, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0586-4700
Rashin AlyaliDepartment of Radiology, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5384-3648
Elham TavakkolDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2869-8087
Ardabil University of Medical Sciences · IRGuilan University of Medical Sciences · IRKerman University of Medical Sciences · IRThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Tabriz · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A range of procedural errors can occur when performing endodontic treatment on posterior teeth. These errors may decrease the success rate in endodontic practice. This study assessed the prevalence of procedural errors and the quality of endodontic treatments in maxillary molars and premolars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT scans from two private radiology centers were assessed retrospectively to ensure the same calculated sample size of 327 teeth for each of the four maxillary posterior tooth types (a total of 1,308 endodontically treated teeth). Image sets were evaluated for procedural errors categorized as follows: obturation length (overfilling or underfilling by >2 mm short of the root apex), missed canals, perforations, strip perforations (with extrusion of material into the furcation area), separated instruments in the root canal space, and root fracture. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and frequency data was assessed using the Monte Carlo test at the 0.05 level of significance. The procedural errors most commonly reported in the present study were from most frequent to least frequent: underfilled canals (50.0%), missed canals (27.5%), overfilled canals (12.5%), apical perforations (5.0%), separated instruments (3.1%), and root fractures (1.9%). No strip perforations (with extrusion of material into the furcation area) were seen in the study (0%). Underfilled and missed root canals were the most frequent procedural errors identified in the present study. These findings underline the importance of more consideration of critical working length management during all stages of root canal treatment, greater awareness of root canal anatomy, and the use of imaging and diagnostic devices that enhance the ability to identify and treat root canals both safely and effectively.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyTooth RootDental Pulp CavityPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesRoot Canal Therapy

Identifiers

PMID38116330
PMCPMC10730252
OpenAlexW4389607980

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.