ArticleScientific reports2024
Managing failed vital pulp therapies in mature permanent teeth in a retrospective cohort study, with success and survival rates of managing protocols.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Management strategies for pulpitis in vital permanent teeth in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Five-Year Success of Endodontics Plus Vital Pulp Therapy in a Symptomatic Maxillary Molar: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Hemostasis Time as a Criterion in Vital Pulpotomy: Methodological and Biological Considerations.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of vital pulp therapy versus root canal treatment in immature permanent teeth with pulpal involvement: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of minimally invasive endodontic access cavity in molar teeth on polymerization, porosity and fracture resistance.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite advancements in vital pulp therapy (VPT), a subset of cases fails to achieve desired outcomes. This study based on a previous large-scale cohort study involving 1257 VPT-treated teeth, aiming to describe the demographic data and clinical characteristics of all failed cases and their management protocols. Clinical records/images of 105 failed cases treated by a single endodontist (2011-2022) were examined, including 10 extracted teeth. Asymptomatic cases with PDL widening received no intervention, while others underwent management protocols, including (selective) RCT and (tampon) re-VPT. These retreatments were assessed for success (defined as radiographic evidence of healing) and survival (characterized by the retention/function of the treated tooth) using Kaplan-Meier analysis. While 51.4% of all initial failures were diagnosed due to symptoms, 48.6% were symptom-free. Notably, failed cases with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, and apical periodontitis/widened PDL before initial treatment significantly outnumbered asymptomatic cases and normal PDL, respectively (P = 0.001). Moreover, most of the initial failures were observed in teeth with composite resin rather than amalgam restorations (P = 0.002). The success and survival rates for the management protocols were 91.78% and 95.79%, respectively, over an average follow-up period of 36.94 (± 23.30) months. RCT and re-VPT procedures provide successful outcomes for managing unsuccessful VPTs.
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.