Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42238113›Full record

ReviewJADA foundational science2025

The future of endodontic diagnosis: A narrative review focusing on biological markers.

Marie Mora, Juan Pacheco-Yanes, Asgeir Sigurdsson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JADA foundational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marie MoraDepartment of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, NY.
Juan Pacheco-YanesPrivate Practice, Caracas, Venezuela.
Asgeir SigurdssonDepartment of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, NY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Innovative methods for pulpal diagnosis are becoming increasingly important in endodontics, as traditional diagnostic techniques often lack the precision and reliability needed for confident decision making. Molecular diagnostic approaches, like biomarker analysis and advanced sampling methods, represent a step forward in clinical practice. This narrative review aims to identify key biomarkers associated with pulpal inflammation, compare published cutoff points for these biomarkers, and briefly review molecular methods and sampling techniques. Search Strategy: This study is a narrative review of literature identified by a web-based search on PubMed. Original scientific articles, such as clinical studies, reviews, and case reports, were included. Results: Several biomarkers have been associated with pulp inflammation and have been reported as statistically significant, including interleukin 1, 6, and 8; tumor necrosis factor-α; vascular endothelial growth factor; fibrocyte growth factor acidic; and matrix metalloproteinases 8 and 9. Although some cutoff points for these biomarkers have been identified, further research is necessary to refine their clinical applicability. Various sample collection methods, such as gingival crevicular fluid, dentinal fluid, pulpal tissue, and pulpal blood, have been used. Among the analytical techniques, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Luminex protein assays have proven to be the most accurate, sensitive, and specific for evaluating pulpal inflammation.

Indexed as

Biomarkersendodontic diagnosismolecular diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID42238113
PMCPMC13229021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.