ArticleInternational dental journal2025
Comparing Endodontic Treatment Prevalence in Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Diabetic Periodontitis Patients: A Retrospective Case-Control Investigation.
Article in International dental journal, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveApply a case-control retrospective analysis to assess possible differences in the prevalence of endodontically treated teeth in patients with diabetes(DM) and non-diabetics(NDM).
methodsA convenience sample of DM and NDM adults diagnosed with periodontitis and referred to a clinic specializing in periodontal therapy were matched based on age, gender, and year of intake. To assess the number of endodontically treated teeth, a full-mouth set of radiographs was required. Every root-filled tooth was recorded. Sub-analyses were conducted to assess the distribution of teeth based on tooth type and their location in the upper and lower jaws. Additionally, the number of teeth present was counted. Relationships between endodontically treated teeth and related variables were analysed.
resultsTotal 233 periodontitis patients with DM were found to be eligible for inclusion and accordingly matched to 233 periodontitis patients without DM. Between DM and NDM, no statistically significant differences were found in the mean percentage of endodontically treated teeth (DM: 6.88%; NDM: 7.34%; P = .60), tooth type, or jaw type, nor in the average number of teeth (DM: 25.2; NDM: 25.3; P = .68). Based on the multivariate analyses with correction for age, smoking status, and number of teeth, DM was not significantly associated with the number of endodontically treated teeth (OR = 1.16;95% CI: [0.79;1.70]; P = .46).
conclusionIn matched patient sample with adult periodontitis, there was no significant association between DM appearance and the number of endodontically treated teeth or tooth loss when compared with NDM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This suggests that in periodontitis patients DM appears not to be a risk factor influencing the degree of tooth decay necessitating endodontic intervention, nor does it seem to contribute to an increased likelihood of tooth loss in this context.
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.