ArticleCase reports in dentistry2026
Oehlers' Type II Dens Invaginatus Case Report: Outcome of Sequential Management With Primary Targeted Invagination Treatment.
Article in Case reports in dentistry, 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.
- Oehlers' Type II Dens Invaginatus Case Report: Outcome of Sequential Management With Primary Targeted Invagination Treatment.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
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
Diversity of possible anatomical variations and configurations of dens invaginatus limits the possibility to conduct its complex treatment in a fully standardized protocol manner. Thus, the objective of the present case report was to approbate targeted approach to Type II dens invaginatus treatment, which may also be interpreted as part of a sequential management strategy with the intention to keep the vitality of a pulp within the main root canal in the first place. The present case report also opens a topic for discussion if "partial success" definition may be applicable for assessment of Type II dens invaginatus treatment outcomes. A 16-year-old patient referred to the dentist complaining of painful percussion in the area of Tooth 12. Clinical examination methods (visual examination, sensitivity testing, percussion, and probing) were used for the diagnostics of problematic Tooth 12. To confirm the diagnosis of dens invaginatus, Type II CBCT examination was held. The following treatment was provided: root canal treatment of the invaginated canal only in the first place, while root canal treatment of the main canal was planned to be provided on demand if needed. From the perspective of the presented case report, targeted endodontic treatment of invagination has resolved all the symptoms from the very beginning; meanwhile, the recurrence of the symptoms after some time was due to the involvement of the main root canal. Sequential management with primary targeted invagination treatment of Oehlers' Type II dens invaginatus presented in this case report seems to be a possible approach for a carefully selected clinical situation aimed at minimizing the level of iatrogenic intervention; however, in the described case report, the end tooth required full endodontic treatment. Considering the risk of potential endodontic complications, development periodical screening of patients, who have undergone primary targeted invagination treatment, seems to be beneficial and reasonable to provide.
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.