ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
The reliability and validity of the restoration difficulty evaluation system tool for assessing the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A pilot study.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is crucial for their long-term functionality, yet current practices lack structured approaches, leading to variable outcomes. The restorative difficulty evaluation system (RDES) offers a systematic method to assess restoration complexity tailored to each patient. This pilot study aims to evaluate RDES's reliability and validity in guiding clinicians' decisions on ETT restoration. Methodology: Ten participants were recruited, and two endodontists independently assessed clinical parameters using RDES. Interrater reliability was assessed to determine agreement between examiners. Test-retest reliability was evaluated over two time points (baseline and 2 weeks). Face and content validity were assessed by a panel of 10 experts. Results: Intrarater reliability was robust (Evaluator 1: Conclusion: The study demonstrates RDES's reliability and validity in assessing restoration complexity in ETT. Its systematic approach can inform treatment decisions, potentially enhancing patient outcomes.
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.