ArticleBMC oral health2025
A rare case of long-term retention of a fractured endodontic instrument in the alveolar bone without adverse effects on the successor tooth.
Article in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFracture of endodontic instruments during primary tooth treatment is rare, and limited evidence exists regarding the lon g-term impact of retained fragments on the development of successor teeth and surrounding alveolar bone. CASE PRESENTATION: This report describes a 33-year-old woman in whom a radiopaque foreign body was incidentally discovered in the periapical region of the right maxillary first premolar (#14) during a routine dental examination. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) revealed a well-defined, high-density object measuring 3.61 mm × 0.66 mm, located approximately 0.5 mm from the root apex. The patient recalled undergoing endodontic treatment during childhood. Based on imaging features and clinical history, the object was presumed to be a fractured instrument fragment retained during primary root canal therapy. The foreign body caused no inflammatory signs, and both the permanent tooth and surrounding alveolar bone developed normally. After multidisciplinary consultation, conservative management was selected. The patient remained asymptomatic during a one-year follow-up period.
conclusionsThis case illustrates that small endodontic fragments retained from primary tooth treatment may remain embedded in the alveolar bone for decades without inducing inflammation or disrupting the development of permanent teeth or periodontal tissues. In cases where foreign bodies are asymptomatic and radiographically stable, conservative monitoring may be a clinically reasonable approach.
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.