FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2039246265> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2039246265 endingPage "932" @default.
• W2039246265 startingPage "931" @default.
• W2039246265 abstract "The International Endodontic Journal is constantly striving to raise standards in endodontic research, and it is therefore appropriate to review published papers and seek out best practice. In recent years, a number of papers have been published on the use of mineral trioxide aggregate in primary pulp treatment. Table 1 lists eight studies published in the last 4 years. It is likely that they were all designed and carried out at a similar period and without reference to each other. The nature of research is to investigate the unknown, so what are considered to be appropriate periods for radiological review? The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2005) published guidelines that gave no advice on this issue. The UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry (Llewelyn 2000) advised annual radiographs for primary tooth pulpotomy, the UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry (Rodd et al. 2006) advised regular review of primary molar pulp therapy, but did not specify time intervals; and the European Society of Endodontology (2006) quality guidelines for endodontic treatment advised an initial review at 6 months; these last guidelines were focused on permanent tooth pulps rather than primary teeth. If the eight studies are analyzed, Table 1 reveals two studies with a first radiological follow-up at 1 month, followed by one at 3 months and then 6 months. Neither of these studies detected any problem at any time interval. There were three studies with the first follow-up at 3 months then 6 months; four failures were noted at 3 months out of a total of 210 teeth. By 1 year the number of failures was 19 of 210. There were three studies with the first follow-up at 6 months then 1 year; one failure was detected at 6 months out of 118 teeth. Combining all the studies detected a 7% failure rate. Therefore the information about an adverse response gained from radiological evaluation is low. The 3-month radiograph is rarely useful and therefore the radiation, especially in young children, is not justified. With hindsight the UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry (Llewelyn 2000) offer the most acceptable guidance given the need to be aware of the UK justification of practices involving ionising radiation regulations (UK Government 2004). This requires the overall benefits of practices which might result in the exposure of people to ionising radiation, to be weighed against the harm likely to be caused by the radiation exposure. It is to be hoped that the research community will take up the challenge to design better clinical studies that yield the most information from the least intervention to patients, and that guidelines will be more specific about follow-up times. It is especially important to avoid unnecessary radiation in young children." @default.
• W2039246265 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2039246265 creator A5002435809 @default.
• W2039246265 date "2008-11-01" @default.
• W2039246265 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W2039246265 title "Frequency of radiological review in pulp studies" @default.
• W2039246265 cites W1969762290 @default.
• W2039246265 cites W1987592688 @default.
• W2039246265 cites W2011089475 @default.
• W2039246265 cites W2020644321 @default.
• W2039246265 cites W2087288528 @default.
• W2039246265 cites W2131858521 @default.
• W2039246265 cites W4252007827 @default.
• W2039246265 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01479.x" @default.
• W2039246265 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19133081" @default.
• W2039246265 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2039246265 type Work @default.
• W2039246265 sameAs 2039246265 @default.
• W2039246265 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2039246265 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2039246265 hasAuthorship W2039246265A5002435809 @default.
• W2039246265 hasBestOaLocation W20392462651 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConcept C18468158 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConcept C188442228 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConcept C190892606 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConcept C2909418495 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConceptScore W2039246265C141071460 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConceptScore W2039246265C18468158 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConceptScore W2039246265C188442228 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConceptScore W2039246265C190892606 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConceptScore W2039246265C199343813 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConceptScore W2039246265C2909418495 @default.
• W2039246265 hasConceptScore W2039246265C71924100 @default.
• W2039246265 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2039246265 hasLocation W20392462651 @default.
• W2039246265 hasLocation W20392462652 @default.
• W2039246265 hasOpenAccess W2039246265 @default.
• W2039246265 hasPrimaryLocation W20392462651 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W1526402117 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W1958115281 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W2025954589 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W2079315889 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W2160261149 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W2160364251 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W2229013662 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W2462837745 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W3008452279 @default.
• W2039246265 hasRelatedWork W3172936087 @default.
• W2039246265 hasVolume "41" @default.
• W2039246265 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2039246265 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2039246265 magId "2039246265" @default.
• W2039246265 workType "article" @default.