Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40509940›Full record

ArticleInternational endodontic journal2025

Influence of different endodontic treatment protocols on tooth survival: A retrospective cohort study with multistate analysis and group balancing.

Ahmed Elmaasarawi, Mohamed Mekhemar, Andreas Bartols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International endodontic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ahmed ElmaasarawiClinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3152-2991
Mohamed MekhemarClinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4294-757X
Andreas BartolsClinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7789-6330

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study aimed to assess how three different treatment protocols affect the survival of teeth and the survival of teeth without further interventions after root canal treatment (RCT), while also considering additional factors that could potentially influence the treatment outcome. METHODOLOGY: Data were collected from an outpatient clinic database from July 1999 to January 2024 and 14 233 treated teeth could be included in a retrospective cohort study. Treatment protocols incorporated hand files (Protocol 1), multiple-file rotary NiTi systems added with passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), citric acid and occasionally chlorhexidine (Protocol 2) and reciprocating instruments added with PUI, EDTA, warm vertical compaction and calcium silicate-based sealer (Protocol 3). Survival analysis coupled with Cox proportional hazard regression and Kaplan-Meier curves took into account several variables including treatment, patient demographics and experience of the treatment provider. Confounding was addressed by entropy balancing and gradient boosted logistic regression. Multistate analysis was conducted to evaluate the influence of treatment protocols on the transition between various intervention states.

resultsSurvival analysis revealed that Protocol 3 significantly enhanced survival rates and survival rates without further interventions by 30%-40% compared to both other protocols. Additionally, higher patient age was identified as a negative predictor of treatment outcomes. Supportive periodontal treatments were a positive predictor. Factors such as tooth type, vitality, number of visits, experienced treatment provider, calcium silicate-based sealer and patient gender did not significantly affect outcomes in the adjusted models. Multistate analysis confirmed that Protocol 3 was associated with significantly reduced incidences of retreatment and extraction.

conclusionProtocol 3 significantly enhanced survival and survival without further interventions compared to both other protocols. Patient age and supportive periodontal treatments were significant predictors of outcomes throughout all calculated models.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsRoot Canal TherapyAdultCalcium CompoundsChlorhexidineCitric AcidFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSilicatesTreatment OutcomeCalcium CompoundsChlorhexidineCitric AcidSilicatesgroup balancingmultistate analysisroot canal preparation [E06.397.778.889]root canal treatmentsurvival analysis [E05.318.740.998]treatment outcome [N04.761.559.590.800]

Identifiers

PMID40509940
PMCPMC12423491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.