ArticleMedicine2026
Comparison of 2 kinds of endodontic treatments for pulp necrosis and infection in immature teeth following avulsion: A retrospective study.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) for treating avulsion injuries through a comparative retrospective analysis of avulsed immature permanent teeth treated with apexification (APEX) and REPs. Forty-nine teeth from 39 patients met the inclusion criteria and were divided into APEX (n = 25) and REP (n = 24) groups. Clinical and radiographic data were analyzed, with treatment outcomes categorized as "healed," "healing," or "disease." Quantitative radiographic analysis using ImageJ software measured percent changes in root length and thickness. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of ``disease'' treatment outcome. The APEX (n = 25) and REP (n = 24) groups demonstrated balanced baseline characteristics (all P > .05). Analysis identified several prognostic factors, with storage medium (P = .031), root development stage (P = .003), and periodontal healing (PH) type (P < .001) showing significant associations. Multivariable analysis identified PH as the only independent predictor of ``disease'' treatment outcome (P = .005), with both ankylosis-related resorption (adjusted odds ratio = 0.014, 95% confidence interval: 0.001-0.235, P = .003) and infection-related resorption (adjusted odds ratio = 0.053, 95% confidence interval: 0.007-0.415, P = .005) substantially reducing the odds of healing. In a limited subsample (n = 20), REPs suggested a strong trend toward faster apical closure (P = .021), with 85.7% of REP cases achieving closure within 12 to 18 months compared to 23.1% of APEX cases. Radiographic measurements showed minimal and comparable changes in root development between groups (P > .05). REPs represent a viable therapeutic alternative to APEX in the management of avulsed immature teeth and associated with a tendency toward earlier apical closure. Furthermore, the type of PH was identified as a critical prognostic factor, serving as a key indicator for predicting adverse treatment outcomes.
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.