Trial reportActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Tissue response in hemisectioned primary mandibular second molars.
Trial report in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCongenital absence of mandibular second premolars occur in 2.91-3.22% of individuals, with nearly half of cases being bilateral. Interceptive hemisection of primary second molars promotes mesial drift but exposes the pulp for an extended period. This study investigates histopathological responses of pulp and associated mineralized tissues. MATERIAL AND
methodsChildren aged 7-12 in Skaraborg region, Sweden, were screened for over-retained primary mandibular second molars as part of a single-center, blinded, prospective split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial comparing hemisection with extraction. Mesial roots of 21 hemisected teeth were collected for histopathological analysis of inflammatory infiltrate, pulpal necrosis, fibrosis, and hard tissue formation.
resultsMean interval between distal and mesial root extraction was 11.54 ± 4.3 months. Histopathological analysis revealed no pulpal inflammation in 14% of specimens, acute/subacute inflammation in 38%, chronic inflammation in 48%, and necrosis in 24%. Reparative tertiary dentin with capping occurred in 48% and without capping in 33%. Necrotic mineralized tissue appeared in one specimen. Three patients reported symptoms during follow-up.
conclusionProlonged pulp exposure following hemisection induced tertiary dentinogenesis, maintaining pulp vitality for up to 17 months. Despite histological evidence of inflammation or necrosis, most cases remained asymptomatic, indicating remarkable regenerative capacity of primary pulp-dentin complex.
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.