European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2006
Pulpotomy in primary teeth: review of the literature according to standardized criteria.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fuks A B, Papagiannoulis L
Аннотация
AIM: To assess the relevant literature using a modification of the criteria listed in the introductory paper to this issue [Curzon and Toumba, 2006], and to review several new publications on pulpotomies with different materials and techniques that appeared after previously published reviews.
METHODS: A search of the literature on pulpotomies was identified using Medline between the years 1966-2005. The search generated 358 citations and sieving of these papers was conducted by examining the paper title and assessing its relevance [Loh et al., 2004]. Only clinical studies (non-specified) and retrospective studies were included for assessment. There were 17 criteria (considered major) weighed 2 points and 8 criteria weighed 1 point. A paper that would score between 38-42 points (90+ %) was assessed as Grade A, a score from 32 to 37 points (75-89%) was Grade B1, and between 25 to 31 points (60-74%) Graded B2. All other papers that reached 24 points or less (less than 59%) was rated Grade C.
RESULTS: Of the 358 papers originally identified 48 clinical trials were evaluated according to the set of criteria. There was only one paper graded A, 5 papers graded B1, 3 graded B2 and 39 received a grade C. Formocresol or ferric sulphate medicaments were found to be likely to have similar clinical/radiographic results, and MTA seemed to be a more favourable pulp dressing.
CONCLUSION: No conclusion can be made as to the optimum treatment or technique for pulpally involved primary teeth. More high quality, properly planned prospective studies are necessary to clarify these points.
METHODS: A search of the literature on pulpotomies was identified using Medline between the years 1966-2005. The search generated 358 citations and sieving of these papers was conducted by examining the paper title and assessing its relevance [Loh et al., 2004]. Only clinical studies (non-specified) and retrospective studies were included for assessment. There were 17 criteria (considered major) weighed 2 points and 8 criteria weighed 1 point. A paper that would score between 38-42 points (90+ %) was assessed as Grade A, a score from 32 to 37 points (75-89%) was Grade B1, and between 25 to 31 points (60-74%) Graded B2. All other papers that reached 24 points or less (less than 59%) was rated Grade C.
RESULTS: Of the 358 papers originally identified 48 clinical trials were evaluated according to the set of criteria. There was only one paper graded A, 5 papers graded B1, 3 graded B2 and 39 received a grade C. Formocresol or ferric sulphate medicaments were found to be likely to have similar clinical/radiographic results, and MTA seemed to be a more favourable pulp dressing.
CONCLUSION: No conclusion can be made as to the optimum treatment or technique for pulpally involved primary teeth. More high quality, properly planned prospective studies are necessary to clarify these points.