2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of Size and Volume of Periapical Lesions on the Outcome of Endodontic Microsurgery: 3-Dimensional Analysis Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
44
1
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
3
44
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, it was challenging to make an objective data interpretation due to the lack of criteria consistency among the studies; there is a need to establish guidelines to report outcomes targeted to studies on EMS. Lastly, despite the current trend of the search for comparative outcome results between 2-Dimensional (2D) and 3-Dimensional (3D) outcome measurement, the inclusion of such studies [ 55 , 56 , 57 ] was not possible due to a short follow-up time [ 57 ], a retrospective study design [ 56 ], or to the clinical and radiographic criteria applied [ 55 ]. Although there are studies reporting that 2D evaluation overestimates healing compared with 3D [ 23 , 55 ], Kruse et al [ 18 ] developed a study with the aim to make a comparison of the diagnostic validity between 2D and 3D outcome measurement to determine the true nature of periapical lesions diagnosed through these two different radiographic methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, it was challenging to make an objective data interpretation due to the lack of criteria consistency among the studies; there is a need to establish guidelines to report outcomes targeted to studies on EMS. Lastly, despite the current trend of the search for comparative outcome results between 2-Dimensional (2D) and 3-Dimensional (3D) outcome measurement, the inclusion of such studies [ 55 , 56 , 57 ] was not possible due to a short follow-up time [ 57 ], a retrospective study design [ 56 ], or to the clinical and radiographic criteria applied [ 55 ]. Although there are studies reporting that 2D evaluation overestimates healing compared with 3D [ 23 , 55 ], Kruse et al [ 18 ] developed a study with the aim to make a comparison of the diagnostic validity between 2D and 3D outcome measurement to determine the true nature of periapical lesions diagnosed through these two different radiographic methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of the study population are given in Table 1. Lesion sizes - to give an approximation of the severity of the periapical process - were calculated as recommended by Kim et al [19]: the mesiodistal (width), buccolingual (depth) and apicocoronal (height) dimensions were measured. All patients were referred for endodontic surgery by general dental practitioners to the Department of Operative and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Szeged (Szeged, Hungary).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The titles and abstracts of the 113 selected articles were screened and 79 articles were excluded. Then, the remaining 34 articles were subjected to full-text analysis to assess eligibility, with 21 articles being excluded [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ] according to the reasons listed in Table S2 . Therefore, 13 articles were included in the qualitative assessment: one randomized controlled trial [ 8 ], four prospective cohort studies [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 51 ], and eight retrospective cohort studies [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 17 , 26 , 52 , 53 , 54 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%