ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Evaluation of Treatment Decision-Making for Teeth with Post-Treatment Apical Periodontitis Among Dental Students, General Dentists, and Endodontists in Chile.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate treatment decision-making processes when assessing periapical radiographs of teeth with post-treatment apical periodontitis (AP) among dental students (DS), general dental practitioners (GDP), and endodontists (E) within Chile, and to identify demographic and tooth-related factors associated with extraction decisions. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between 2023 and 2024, involving 431 participants who assessed standardised periapical radiographs depicting clinical scenarios and selected one treatment option: root canal retreatment, apical surgery/intentional replantation, or extraction. A nested mixed logistic regression model and simple logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations between treatment choices and clinician- or tooth-related variables (p < .05). Results: Demographic factors significantly associated with extraction decisions included professional group, age, and workplace. GDP and DS were significantly more likely to recommend extraction (p < 0.001 for both), particularly among GDPs aged 36-45 years (p = 0.003) and those working in the public sector. All tooth-related variables significantly influenced decisions. Teeth with indirect restorations were associated with higher extraction rates, especially among GDP (p < 0.001). Inadequate root canal fillings significantly increased extraction decisions by GDPs (p < 0.001). GDPs also had a strong tendency to extract teeth with medium (p < 0.001) and large apical lesions (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Significant differences were observed across professional groups, with E demonstrating a greater tendency toward tooth preservation. Improving clinical decision-making in undergraduate and continuing dental education may help reduce unnecessary extractions and support evidence-based health planning in underserved areas with limited access to specialist care.
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.