ArticleCureus2023
Cemento-Osseous Dysplasia: A Detailed Comparison of the 2005 and 2017 WHO Classifications and Case Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and radiologic outcomes of dental implants in cemento-osseous dysplasia: a systematic review and retrospective case series.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- CBCT features of florid cemento-osseous dysplasia with coexisting lesions at different maturation stages: a case report and literature review.BMC oral health · 2026Review
- ANO5 p.I616F variant drives florid cemento-osseous dysplasia by disrupting transmembrane domain structure.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Periapical cemento-osseous dysplasia masquerading as asymptomatic chronic apical periodontitis in a Chinese woman: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The WHO substantially redefined cemento-osseous dysplasia (COD) in 2017. The descriptions of COD in the 2005 and 2017 WHO classifications are quite different. In this study, we compared the difference in COD description between the 2005 and 2017 editions of the WHO classifications in detail. There are remarkable differences in the terminology, definition, synonyms, epidemiology, classifications, clinical features, radiation/pathology, prognosis, and predictive factors of COD between the two versions. At present, the surgical treatment of COD is less defined, and there is no clear guidance for the treatment of sclerotic bone. In this study, we extracted the affected teeth without removing the sclerotic bone when the bone absorption line can be only found between the root and the lesion, and we extracted the teeth as well as the lesion and curetted the granulation tissue when a bone absorption line could be seen between the lesion and the alveolar bone. According to our observation, the position of the bone absorption line can be used as a reference for the selection of sclerotic bone treatment. Sclerotic bone preservation did not increase its volume and density after tooth extraction. Sclerotic bone was composed of highly mineralized tissue with less blood vessels and cells. The position of the bone resorption line can be used as a basis for treatment selection. The high mineralization of the lesion may weaken its anti-infection ability.
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.