ArticleInternational endodontic journal2026
Histopathologic Validity and Clinical Reliability of Wolters Classification of Pulpitis: An Exploratory Study.
Article 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
aimWolters' classification of pulpitis has been proposed to classify pulpitis into 4 categories (initial, mild, moderate, severe), aiming to guide clinicians to implement the relevant vital endodontic treatment. The main objective of this study was to test the histologic validity and clinical reliability of the Wolters classification. METHODOLOGY: For the validity, before extraction, 52 teeth with pulpitis were examined and classified by one examiner into the appropriate Wolters category. After extraction and histological processing, a blinded pathologist examined the sections and assigned each tooth to a Wolters category. For the reliability, 140 patients with pulpitis were clinically and radiographically examined by two examiners, and pulpal and periapical diagnoses were made independently according to the Wolters and American Association of Endodontists (AAE) classifications. Finally, the diagnoses were unmasked, and the agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa, weighted Kappa, or intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The correspondence between the categories of the Wolters and AAE classifications was examined using the chi-square test and Cramer's V statistics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe ICC and Kappa analyses indicated poor to fair agreement for the Wolters classification. However, in a re-analysis performed by defining the mild pulpitis category to include a range from no to mild inflammation, the κ coefficients (minimum κ coefficient of 0.4004; p < 0.001) and the ICC value of 0.623 (95% CI: 0.319, 0.791) demonstrated fair to good agreement. Highest sensitivity [0.63 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.82)] and specificity [0.86 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.94)] were found in the severe and mild pulpitis categories, respectively. Regarding the clinical reliability, weighted-Kappa tests (minimum κ coefficient of 0.8118, p < 0.001) and the ICC value of 0.945 (95% CI: 0.923, 0.961) suggested that the interobserver agreement for the Wolters classification was almost perfect to excellent. The Wolters' initial pulpitis category and the moderate and severe pulpitis categories corresponded to the AAE's reversible and irreversible pulpitis categories, respectively. However, the mild pulpitis category was interpreted differently by the examiners.
conclusionsThe Wolters classification demonstrated high clinical reliability; however, its histopathological validity appeared limited. Further research is required to better establish its validity.
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.