ArticleCase reports in dentistry2026
Management of Fractured Fragment With Reattachment: A Case Report With 2-Year Follow-Up.
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. 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
Fragment reattachment is the most conservative treatment approach for uncomplicated crown fractures, which enables the restoration of the original tooth structure and the preservation of the remaining tooth structure. A 15-year-old patient reported with an uncomplicated crown fracture of the maxillary left central incisor involving enamel and dentin. Pulp sensibility testing had a normal response and radiographic examination revealed no periapical pathology. The retrieved fractured fragment had good marginal adaptation. Following rehydration, fragment reattachment was performed under rubber dam isolation using an etch-and-rinse protocol, a two-coat adhesive application and nanohybrid flowable composite. At the second appointment, a V-shaped retentive groove of 0.7-mm depth was placed in both the labial and palatal aspects, extending 2 mm on either side of the fracture line, followed by composite restoration. The patient was reviewed at 6 weeks, 1 year and 2 years in accordance with the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines. Throughout the follow-up period, the reattached fragment remained clinically intact with no evidence of debonding, marginal discolouration or fracture recurrence. Pulp sensibility testing remained normal, and radiographic examination revealed no periapical changes at all follow-up intervals, demonstrating sustained aesthetic and functional stability over a 2-year follow-up period.
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.