Post- surgical outcomes and prognosis of intentionally replanted lower post-erior teeth

Abid, Wafaa K.

doi:10.33899/rden.2010.9012

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most authors advocated minimizing this time to preserve vitality of the PDL cells. The times ranged from 2 to 3 minutes, as reported by Abid et al (38), up to 31 to 50 minutes in the report by Tewari and Chawla (21). Most kept the extraoral time to less than 30 minutes.…”

Section: Extraoral Timementioning

confidence: 64%

Intentional Replantation Techniques: A Critical Review

Becker

2018

Journal of Endodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Extraoral Timementioning

confidence: 64%

Intentional Replantation Techniques: A Critical Review

Becker

2018

Journal of Endodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to PS, there was an over‐ or underestimation of the result for IR, due to methodological and reporting inadequacies, specifically inconsistent IR protocol (Torabinejad et al, 2015b; Wang et al, 2020), variable criteria for tooth survival (Mainkar, 2017; Torabinejad et al, 2015b), incorrect interpretation of the survival rate (Abid, 2010), where extractions for the failing teeth were performed at the end of the study (Torabinejad et al, 2015b), incompatibility of survival metrics for single‐crown implants and IR (Torabinejad et al, 2015b). Additionally, Wang et al (2020) had terminology discrepancies regarding ‘success’ and ‘survival’, there was a failure to define the relevant outcome criteria, and there was no description of quantitative statistical data analysis for the meta‐analysis that was performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tenderness to percussion and palpation for PS was assessed during clinical examination and with the VAS (Kurt et al, 2014). For the assessment of pain following IR, the VAS was used from 1 week to 2 years (Abid, 2010) and verbal enquiry was followed up for as long as 12 years (Asgary et al, 2014; Cho et al, 2016). Swelling, mobility, tenderness to percussion and palpation were assessed clinically only for IR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on surgical endodontics: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence-informed decision-making in health care relies on the translation of research results to everyday clinical practice. A fundamental requirement is that the validity of any healthcare intervention must be supported by the resultant favourable treatment outcome. Unfortunately, differences in study design and the outcome measures evaluated often make it challenging to synthesize the available research evidence required for secondary research analysis and guideline development. Core outcome sets (COS) are defined as an agreed standardized set of outcomes, which should be measured and reported as a minimum in all clinical trials on a specific topic. The benefits of COS include less heterogeneity, a reduction in the risk of reporting bias and ensuring all trials contribute data to facilitate metaanalyses; given the engagement of key stakeholders, it also increases the chances that clinically relevant outcomes are identified. The recognition of the need for COS for assessing endodontic treatment outcomes leads to the development of Core Outcome Sets for Endodontic Treatment modalities (COSET) protocol, which is registered (No. 1879) on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) website. Objectives:The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the outcomes assessed in studies evaluating surgical endodontic procedures; (2) report on the method of assessment used to measure the outcomes; (3) and assess selective reporting bias in the included studies. The data obtained will be used to inform the development of COS for surgical endodontics.Methods: A structured literature search of electronic databases and the grey literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews on periradicular surgery (PS), intentional replantation (IR) and tooth/root resection (RR), published between January 1990 and December 2020. Two independent reviewers were involved in the literature selection, data extraction and the appraisal of the studies identified. The type of intervention, outcomes measured, type of outcomes reported (clinician-or patient-reported), outcome measurement method and follow-up period were recorded using a standardized form.Results: Twenty-six systematic reviews consisting of 19 studies for PS, three studies for IR and four studies for RR were selected for inclusion. Outcome measures

show abstract

“…(11), manifiesta que en conductos en "C" la supervivencia fue del 83.4% en un período de 4 años y el 73.0% en 11 años; Abid y cols. (22), manifestó el 100 % de éxito en un periodo de 2 años; Koenig y cols. (23), el 82% en un período de dos años; Raghoebar y cols.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Reimplante Intencional: Reporte De Caso

Miranda¹

2020

reportaendo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El reimplante intencional está destinado a tratar dientes que no pueden ser tratados de forma predecible por otros medios o técnicas, teniendo siempre en consideración el deseo del paciente de mantener sus dientes naturales, así como sus expectativas. Consiste en extraer un diente y reinsertarlo en el alveólo después de la manipulación odontológica, obteniendo un relleno del conducto radicular/ ápice radicular o ambos. El reimplante intencional a menudo se considera un procedimiento de último recurso, probablemente debido a la gran variación en la tasa de éxito reportadas en la literatura y a la ausencia de un protocolo establecido. En este caso clínico se describe el protocolo del reimplante intencional utilizado en una mujer de 43 años de edad que fue remitida a la clínica del máster en Endodoncia de la Universidad Europea de Madrid con periodo de seguimiento de 1 año.

show abstract

Post- surgical outcomes and prognosis of intentionally replanted lower post-erior teeth

Abstract: Aims:To evaluate intentional replantation based on clinical and radiographic assessment criteria over a two year period. Materials and Methods: The clinical trial was conducted at the

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

Intentional Replantation Techniques: A Critical Review

Intentional Replantation Techniques: A Critical Review

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on surgical endodontics: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

Reimplante Intencional: Reporte De Caso

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About