ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Effects of Single-Session Treatment of Primary Teeth Under General Anesthesia Versus At-Office Multi-session Treatment on Permanent Molar Caries Status: Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEffects of treatment under general anesthesia versus several sessions of at-office treatment on the transition of caries prevalence from primary to permanent dentitions have not been assessed. Moreover, other gaps exist in the literature. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis 4-group non-randomized clinical trial was performed on 280 children 8-10 years old in 4 groups, including both negative and positive controls: children with a history of caries in primary teeth who were (1) treated routinely in office (n = 60) versus (2) under general anesthesia versus (n = 110) (3) similar children undergoing no treatment versus (positive control, n = 60) (4) children without a history of primary teeth caries (negative caries, n = 50). A clinical assessment was performed to assess dmft (caries and restoration statuses of primary teeth), OHI-S (oral hygiene), and ICDAS indexes (caries and restoration statuses of permanent molars). Data were analyzed (α = 0.05).
resultsThere were significant, positive correlations among dmft, caries component of ICDAS, and OHI-S (p-values = 0.000). The dmft scores were significantly different across 4 groups (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.000), with children treated under general anesthesia followed by in-office treatment and no-treatment positive control group having the highest dmft scores (all Bonferroni-adjusted p-values ≤ 0.013). The ICDAS-caries of the general anesthesia group was significantly greater than the negative control, but also significantly smaller than both positive control and in-office treatment group (all Bonferroni-adjusted p-values ≤ 0.009). Groups were different in terms of OHI-S (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.000); hygiene was the worst in positive-control and in-office groups, followed by the anesthesia group and the negative control.
conclusionsAlthough children who underwent treatment with general anesthesia had the worst dmft scores, treatment under general anesthesia considerably reduced caries of their permanent first molars (as indicated by ICDAS scores) and oral hygiene (as indicated by OHI-S) compared to children who were treated routinely in the office. Primary tooth caries might be a decisive predictor of permanent molar caries formation.
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.