ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Treatment preferences related to pulpectomy and prosthetic restorations among Lithuanian general dentists and prosthodontists.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare self-reported treatment preferences related to pulpectomy prior to prosthetic treatment, restoration selection for vital teeth, and impression-taking methods between Lithuanian general dentists (GDs) and prosthodontists (Ps). MATERIAL AND
methodsA questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 386 dentists in Lithuania, including GDs (62.4%) and Ps (37.6%). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests (Chi-square and Fisher's exact test), with a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsMost indications for pulpectomy were reported similarly by both groups; however, significant differences were observed for extensive coronal structure loss (> 50%) and deep caries, cervical lesions, gingival recession, short clinical crown, insufficient retention, enamel hypoplasia, and external root resorption (p < 0.05). Ps also more frequently reported using indirect restorations, including porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, lithium disilicate ceramic inlays and onlays, and polymethyl methacrylate crowns. Conventional impressions were more common among GDs, whereas digital or combined workflows were more common among Ps.
conclusionsLithuanian GDs and Ps reported broadly similar preferences regarding preservation of tooth vitality, but differed in selected pulpectomy indications, restorative options, and impression-taking methods. These differences may reflect variation in specialist training, clinical experience, and access to prosthetic workflows.
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.