ArticleDentistry journal2024
40-Year Outcome of Old-School, Non-Surgical Endodontic Treatment: Practice-Based Retrospective Evaluation.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes and Complication Rates of Endodontically Treated Teeth with Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Retrospective Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Biological and mechanical challenges in the endodontic treatment of immature teeth with pulp necrosis: insights based on a Series of Atypical Clinical Cases.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2025Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Non-surgical endodontic treatment has been shown to be clinically successful; however, clinical long-term data are scarce. This practice-based retrospective clinical investigation evaluated endodontic outcomes over 40 years and identified relevant clinical co-factors. (2) Methods: Two experienced dental practitioners in two different private dental practices treated 174 patients with 245 teeth from 1969 to 1993. After root canal obturation, either a new direct restoration (amalgam, resin composite, or glass-ionomer cement) or the re-cementation of a pre-existing prosthetic restoration or renewal of prosthetic restoration followed. Metal posts (operator A) or metal screws (operator B) were inserted when coronal substance loss was significant. The primary outcome (i.e., tooth survival) was achieved when the endodontically treated tooth was, in situ, painless and had full function at the end of the observation period. A secondary outcome, the impact of different prognostic factors on survival rate, was evaluated. (3) Results: The overall mean survival was 56.1% of all treated teeth after 40 years of clinical service, resulting in an annual failure rate of 1.1%. Most investigated clinical co-factors (jaw, tooth position, intracanal dressings, post/screw placement, and gender) showed no significant influence on survival. (4) Conclusions: Even with materials and techniques from the 1970s and 1980s, successful root canal treatment was achievable. Except for post-endodontic restorations, most of the evaluated factors had no significant influence on the clinical long-term survival of root canal-treated teeth.
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.