ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Intentional reimplantation of a mandibular premolar with severe apical root resorption: a case report demonstrating diagnostic complexity in adjacent teeth.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This case report aimed to illustrate the clinical application of intentional reimplantation (IR) as a conservative and effective treatment strategy in cases of significant apical root resorption when surgical endodontics poses a risk to adjacent anatomical structures. Furthermore, it addressed the diagnostic challenge concerning the neighboring tooth, underscoring the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation to accurately differentiate between pathologies and prevent misdiagnosis. Case presentation: A 25-year-old woman presented with tooth #44 that had previously initiated root canal therapy. Cone beam computed tomography was used to verify both internal and external resorption patterns, whereas clinical and radiographic assessments revealed extensive apical resorption. The patient underwent re-implantation after receiving root canal therapy. Tooth #43 presented a diagnostic challenge, as it appeared non-vital based on sensibility testing. However, a positive response was observed during the test cavity preparation. At the 15-month follow-up, tooth #44 showed clinical and radiographic healing with no visible symptoms of ankylosis or resorption. The sensibility test results for tooth #43 returned to normal, validating the initial false-negative findings. Conclusion: With a careful technique, appropriate case selection, and thorough follow-up protocols, intentional reimplantation is a legitimate and reliable tooth-preserving treatment option for complex endodontic failures, especially those involving extensive root resorption. This case also emphasizes the value of a thorough diagnostic approach, particularly in cases where the results of the sensibility test conflict with the radiographic and clinical findings in neighboring teeth.
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.