SynthesisInternational endodontic journal2026
Reference Values for Pulse Oximetry Testing in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International endodontic journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulse oximetry is an accurate diagnostic method for assessing the condition of the dental pulp; however, the normal oxygen saturation levels for each tooth type are yet to be clearly defined.
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to answer the question: What are the reference values for pulse oximetry testing in permanent teeth with healthy pulps and complete root formation?
methodThe present review followed the PRISMA recommendations. Systematic searches were conducted in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and OpenGrey electronic databases, for studies published until September 2025, without any restrictions on the year or language of publication. The following descriptors were combined in each database: 'Endodontics', 'Dental Pulp', 'Pulse Oximetry', 'Oximeter', 'Oxygen Saturation', 'Pulp Oxygen Saturation'. Only clinical studies were included. Two independent authors were responsible for study selection and data extraction. In cases of disagreement, a third author was responsible for the final decision. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool, RoB 2.0, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies, or QUADAS-2, depending on the study design.
resultsThe initial screening of databases yielded 1772 studies, with 322 duplicates excluded. From the 1450 eligible papers, 55 met the inclusion criteria and were selected for full-text reading, resulting in the selection of 35 studies. Five additional studies were included from reference lists of the selected papers. Therefore, a total of 40 studies were included in the present review. Meta-analyses of the oxygen saturation values for each maxillary and mandibular tooth type were conducted using a random-effects model. A total of 3537 teeth from twenty studies were analysed. The highest mean random-effect measure of pulp oxygen saturation was 91.73% (95% CI, 90.33%-93.13%) in mandibular incisors, and the lowest was 86.26% (95% CI, 81.90%-90.62%) in maxillary lateral incisors.
conclusionBased on the available evidence, reference values for pulp oxygen saturation in permanent teeth with complete root development and healthy pulps ranged from 86.26% to 91.73%. These findings support the clinical relevance of establishing preliminary reference values for pulp oximetry and highlight the need for further standardisation before routine clinical implementation. TRAIL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42023437995.
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.