ArticleBMC oral health2024
Orthodontic movement after regenerative endodontic procedure in mature permanent tooth associated with dens invaginatus: a case report with 4-year follow-up.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are innovative treatments aimed at restoring damaged dental structures. However, the effect of orthodontic movement on REP-treated teeth is not well understood and may have significant long-term consequences. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of orthodontic movement on a mature permanent tooth associated with dens invaginatus that has undergone a regenerative endodontic procedure (REP). CASE PRESENTATION: This report describes the case of a 13-year-old healthy male who presented with pulp necrosis and a chronic apical abscess (tooth number 2.2). Following REP according to the American Association of Endodontists' guidelines, the patient began non-extraction orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances after a 9-month healing period, which lasted 17 months in the upper arch. Subsequent follow-ups at 24, 36 and 48 months post-REP revealed an asymptomatic state with minimal cervical discoloration and diminished cold sensitivity. Radiographic analyses revealed periapical healing, mild apical remodeling on tooth 2.2, and moderate apical remodeling on other maxillary incisors. The treated tooth displayed a positive response to both REP and orthodontic treatment, yet further research is required to determine the long-term effects of orthodontics on REP-treated teeth.
conclusionOrthodontic movement following REPs in mature permanent teeth is feasible and do not seem to prone teeth to orthodontic tooth resorption. Our experience indicates that a 9-month healing period allows successful orthodontic outcomes following REPs. Nonetheless, the predictability of outcomes and the ideal healing period before orthodontic movement is initiated remain to be established.
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.