SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Conventional methods and electronic apical locator in determining working length in different primary teeth: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 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.
- Tooth image segmentation and root canal measurement based on deep learning.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the current systematic review was to investigate differences in the measurement of working length in primary teeth between electronic apex locators (EAL) and radiographic methods (conventional radiography [CR] and digital radiography [DR]).
methodsA systematic search was conducted in six electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Virtual Health Library, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Gray literature and reference lists of included studies were also examined. The guiding question of the study was formulated using the PECO strategy (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome): P: primary teeth submitted to pulpectomy; E: measurement of working length using the radiographic methods; C: measurement of working length using electronic apex locator; O: difference in working length. The methodological quality (QUADAS-2) and certainty of the evidence (GRADE) were assessed. Meta-analyses were performed, e foram considerados os tipos de radiografia, grupo de dentes, geração de localizadores apicais. I² statistics were calculated.
resultsTwenty-five studies were included in the review. Of these, eighteen studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Most studies demonstrated fair methodological quality. The working length measured using CR was, on average, 0.52 mm greater when compared to EAL (95% CI: 0.15-0.89, I
conclusionsThe findings of the present review demonstrate a difference in the measurement of working length using CR in comparison with EAL. No difference was found between the EAL and DR methods. The certainty of the evidence was considered low for all outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39775157What 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.