Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39164398›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2024

Accuracy of vitality and sensibility testing in mature and immature anterior teeth: a clinical trial.

Mohammed Bux, Mohammed Adam

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Mohammed BuxOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston, UK.
Mohammed AdamOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston, UK. Mohammed.adam@lthtr.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5287-0479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDetermining the health the status of the pulp is crucial in treatment planning. Both sensibility and vitality testing techniques may be employed. Sensibility testing may be inaccurate in teeth with incomplete root apices. This study intends to compare the accuracy of cold testing (CT), electric pulp testing (EPT) and pulse oximetry (PO) in determining pulpal status of mature and immature anterior teeth.

methods20 mature and 20 immature maxillary permanent incisors of healthy 6-12-year-olds were included. Teeth were categorised as mature permanent central incisors, immature permanent central incisors, and a negative control group with endodontically treated incisors. Vitality and sensitivity tests were performed using EPT, CT, and PO, with measurements taken thrice per tooth. PO was measured with infant pulse oximetry probe sensors placed on the tooth surfaces and fingers. Descriptive statistics were computed, and data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Spearman correlation coefficient analysed correlations between dental and finger SpO

resultsSpO

conclusionsPO is a reliable and non-invasive method for determining pulp vitality in both mature and immature teeth, comparable to traditional sensitivity tests like EPT and CT. PO can be considered an alternative vitality test, especially useful in paediatric dental patients due to its atraumatic and objective nature. Further studies with larger sample sizes and additional vitality tests like doppler flowmetry are recommended to enhance the clinical diagnosis of pulp vitality in anterior and posterior teeth.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp TestIncisorOximetryChildClinical Trials as TopicCold TemperatureDental PulpFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.