ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2025
Danish endodontic practice-based research network: follow-up data.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 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.
- Endodontic Practice Patterns Across Practitioner Profiles in France: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International endodontic 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this prospective, clinical study was to follow-up root canal treatments performed by dentists in the practice-based endodontic research network setting, to assess treatment outcome and factors related to treatment outcome. MATERIAL AND
methodsBaseline information from 536 teeth was included, follow-up information on 269 teeth (50%) was available. Treatments were performed by 12 dentists during 2017-2018. Follow-up period varied from 3.5 months to 3 years. Treatment outcome was assessed in periapical radiographs using the Periapical Index (PAI). Cases were classified as referred or not. Pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables were recorded by the dentists during treatment and analysed at follow-up in relation to treatment outcome.
resultsPeriapical status improved or remained healthy in 174 (66%) teeth. If PAI at baseline was 3, 4, or 5, the outcome was affected negatively (p = 0.049). The length and seal of the root filling was assessed adequate in 75% and 63% of the teeth, respectively. Adequate seal (p = 0.02) and length (p = 0.03) resulted in improved treatment outcome.
conclusionsWhen initial periapical status and/or quality of the root filling was good, there was a higher chance of a successful treatment outcome.
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.