ArticleBMC oral health2025
Prevalence of periapical radiolucent lesions in endodontically-treated teeth with intraradicular posts: a cross-sectional CBCT study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Periapical Status of Post-Restored Teeth: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe literature has reported contradictory findings regarding the association of Intra-radicular posts (IRPs) presence and periapical radiolucent lesions (PRLs) prevalence in endodontically treated teeth (ETT). Considering this, the study aimed to investigate the association between IRPs presence and PRLs prevalence.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted to compare PRLs prevalence in ETT with and without IRPs. CBCT images were utilized, and the teeth with at least 2 mm of remaining gutta-percha apical to the post-end were included. Two calibrated assessors assessed the PRLs presence. A stepwise backward binomial logistic regression was conducted to evaluate the effect of age, post presence, gender, tooth position (anterior/posterior), and arch location (maxillary/mandibular) on the likelihood of periapical radiolucency presence. The null hypothesis is that the presence of IRPs does not influence the prevalence of PRLs.
resultsTeeth with IRPs showed significantly higher PRLs prevalence. However, there were insignificant differences in PRLs prevalence with respect to IRPs type or remaining gutta-percha length. The model, including all five predictors, demonstrated significant fit (χ²(7) = 22.528,p = .002), explaining 14.5% of the variance in the presence of radiolucency (Nagelkerke R²). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no evidence of a lack of fit (χ²(8) = 11.550,p = .172), supporting the model's adequacy. The model correctly classified 67.3% of cases, with a sensitivity of 54.5%, specificity of 75.4%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 58.3%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 72.4%. Among the predictors, post presence was the only statistically significant variable (B = 1.300,p < .001,]OR = 3.670,95%CI[1.985-6.785]).
conclusionsA higher prevalence of PRLs was noted among the ETT with IRPs. Within the limitations of this study, we recommend that clinicians should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of using IRPs during the restoration of ETT.
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.