ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Orthodontically Induced External Apical Root Resorption in Endodontically Treated and Vital Teeth: A Retrospective Split-Mouth Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- Clinical and cephalometric comparison: TMA versus AJ wilcock MBT intrusion arches.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrthodontic tooth movement can induce biological responses in dental and periodontal tissues, most notably external apical root resorption (EARR). The behavior of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) during orthodontic therapy remains a subject of clinical interest, with conflicting evidence regarding their susceptibility to root resorption compared with vital teeth. This study aimed to compare the incidence and severity of orthodontically induced EARR in ETT and adjacent vital teeth and to identify factors associated with root resorption in both groups. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective split-mouth cohort study evaluated the records of patients aged 18-30 years who underwent comprehensive fixed orthodontic treatment and had at least one endodontically treated tooth. ETT were compared with the adjacent vital teeth in the same patient. Pre- and post-treatment radiographs were analyzed to measure root length changes, and the resorption severity was categorized as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Demographic variables, tooth type, treatment duration, and pre-treatment root length were also recorded. Paired sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used for intergroup comparisons, and multivariable linear regression analysis was performed separately for endodontically treated and vital teeth to identify predictors of root resorption. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsFifty patients were included, with a mean age of 25.66 ± 2.99 years and a mean treatment duration of 18.62 ± 4.72 months. The mean root resorption was significantly lower in ETT (0.34 ± 0.48 mm) than in vital teeth (1.15 ± 0.65 mm). Vital teeth exhibited a higher frequency of moderate and severe resorption, whereas most ETT showed no or mild resorption. Regression analysis revealed that treatment duration was the only significant predictor of root resorption in ETT, whereas both the treatment duration and pre-treatment root length were significant predictors in vital teeth.
conclusionETT demonstrated significantly less orthodontically induced EARR than vital teeth. Treatment duration plays a key role in root resorption for both tooth types, suggesting that careful force control and treatment timing are essential to minimize adverse effects.
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.