ReviewIranian endodontic journal2024
Pulp, Root Canal and Peri-radicular Conditions: The Need for Re-classification.
Review in Iranian endodontic journal, 2024. 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.
- Application and performance of artificial intelligence-based models in the detection, segmentation and classification of periapical lesions: a systematic review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Management of Acute Apical Abscess Presenting with Rapid Extrusion of a Tooth: A Case Report.Iranian endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Vital Pulp Therapy: Evidence-Based Techniques and Outcomes.Iranian endodontic journal · 2025Review
- Application of Dental Lasers in the Field of Endodontics: A Review of Literature.Iranian endodontic journal · 2025Review
- Partial Pulpectomy with Bio-Obturation for Internal Root Resorption: A Case Report.Iranian endodontic journal · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently no standard, universally accepted, and clinically useful classification of pulp, root canal and peri-radicular conditions is used within the dental profession. Most published classifications are either too simple and miss many of the conditions reported to occur within the pulp, root canal and peri-radicular tissues, or they are too complex for use in clinical settings. Furthermore, many classifications have used inappropriate terminology that has either not been defined or has been poorly defined. The lack of standardisation leads to confusion amongst practitioners and potential uncertainty regarding treatment. It also limits the ability to communicate effectively, to teach appropriately, and to compare data and research findings throughout the world. When developing a classification of tissue conditions or diseases, it is essential that the classification is developed appropriately and meets the recommended criteria for effective clinical, educational and research use. It is also extremely important that correct and well-defined terminology is used since "words do matter". Popular terminology based on symptoms should be avoided as these have been proven to lead to inappropriate treatment decisions. This review discusses how classifications should be developed for pulp, root canal and peri-radicular conditions. It also discusses the deficiencies of some popular classifications and outlines the classifications that truly address the recommended criteria and reflect the physiological and pathological changes in the pulp, root canal and peri-radicular tissues. Hence, it is recommended that these latter classifications be adopted as the internationally-accepted classifications for future clinical use, as well as for educational, research and communication purposes.
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.