一项回顾性研究显示,对小儿原牙的牙髓切断术、牙髓切除术和拔除术进行分析后发现,它们与随后的根管治疗和恒牙拔除术无明显关联:一项回顾性研究

IF 1.4 Q3 PEDIATRICS Pediatric Reports Pub Date : 2024-05-31 DOI:10.3390/pediatric16020038
Arash Farhadian, Mayce Arreem Issa, Karl Kingsley, Victoria Sullivan
{"title":"一项回顾性研究显示,对小儿原牙的牙髓切断术、牙髓切除术和拔除术进行分析后发现,它们与随后的根管治疗和恒牙拔除术无明显关联:一项回顾性研究","authors":"Arash Farhadian, Mayce Arreem Issa, Karl Kingsley, Victoria Sullivan","doi":"10.3390/pediatric16020038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent evidence suggests that an ever-growing number of pediatric patients require invasive treatments such as root canal therapy (RCT) in their permanent dentition, albeit with little information about risk factors such as prior invasive treatments of pulpotomy or pulpectomy in their primary dentition. Therefore, the primary objectives of this study were to determine the number of pediatric patients who have had any type of invasive treatment in their primary teeth, to assess their association with any subsequent invasive treatment (root canal therapy, extractions) in their permanent dentition, and to assess these trends over time. This retrospective study utilized summary data from a clinical pediatric patient pool (ages 0-17) over the period of 2013-2022. This analysis revealed that pediatric patients requiring pulpotomies and pulpectomies in primary dentition declined between 2013 (<i>n</i> = 417, <i>n</i> = 156) and 2022 (<i>n</i> = 250, <i>n</i> = 12), while root canal therapy (RCT) in permanent dentition increased six-fold from <i>n</i> = 54 to <i>n</i> = 330. In addition, few (7.8%) patients with RCT had a previous history of pulpotomy or pulpectomy, which suggests that invasive treatments performed in primary dentition have no direct association with the subsequent need for invasive treatments in permanent dentition, although more research is needed to determine the explanations for these observations.</p>","PeriodicalId":45251,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Reports","volume":"16 2","pages":"438-450"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11206693/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of Pediatric Pulpotomy, Pulpectomy, and Extractions in Primary Teeth Revealed No Significant Association with Subsequent Root Canal Therapy and Extractions in Permanent Teeth: A Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Arash Farhadian, Mayce Arreem Issa, Karl Kingsley, Victoria Sullivan\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/pediatric16020038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent evidence suggests that an ever-growing number of pediatric patients require invasive treatments such as root canal therapy (RCT) in their permanent dentition, albeit with little information about risk factors such as prior invasive treatments of pulpotomy or pulpectomy in their primary dentition. Therefore, the primary objectives of this study were to determine the number of pediatric patients who have had any type of invasive treatment in their primary teeth, to assess their association with any subsequent invasive treatment (root canal therapy, extractions) in their permanent dentition, and to assess these trends over time. This retrospective study utilized summary data from a clinical pediatric patient pool (ages 0-17) over the period of 2013-2022. This analysis revealed that pediatric patients requiring pulpotomies and pulpectomies in primary dentition declined between 2013 (<i>n</i> = 417, <i>n</i> = 156) and 2022 (<i>n</i> = 250, <i>n</i> = 12), while root canal therapy (RCT) in permanent dentition increased six-fold from <i>n</i> = 54 to <i>n</i> = 330. In addition, few (7.8%) patients with RCT had a previous history of pulpotomy or pulpectomy, which suggests that invasive treatments performed in primary dentition have no direct association with the subsequent need for invasive treatments in permanent dentition, although more research is needed to determine the explanations for these observations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Reports\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"438-450\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11206693/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric16020038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric16020038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的证据表明,越来越多的儿童患者需要进行侵入性治疗,如恒牙根管治疗(RCT),尽管有关风险因素的信息很少,如之前在基牙上进行过牙髓切断术或牙髓切除术等侵入性治疗。因此,本研究的主要目的是确定曾在基牙上接受过任何类型的侵入性治疗的儿童患者人数,评估他们与随后在恒牙上接受的任何侵入性治疗(根管治疗、拔牙)之间的关联,并评估这些治疗随时间变化的趋势。这项回顾性研究利用了 2013-2022 年期间临床儿科患者(0-17 岁)的汇总数据。分析结果显示,在2013年(n = 417,n = 156)至2022年(n = 250,n = 12)期间,需要进行基牙牙髓切断术和牙髓切除术的儿科患者人数有所下降,而恒牙根管治疗(RCT)的人数则从n = 54增至n = 330,增长了六倍。此外,很少(7.8%)接受根管治疗的患者曾有过牙髓切断术或牙髓切除术的病史,这表明在基牙期进行的侵入性治疗与随后在恒牙期进行侵入性治疗的需求没有直接联系,尽管还需要更多的研究来确定这些观察结果的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Analysis of Pediatric Pulpotomy, Pulpectomy, and Extractions in Primary Teeth Revealed No Significant Association with Subsequent Root Canal Therapy and Extractions in Permanent Teeth: A Retrospective Study.

Recent evidence suggests that an ever-growing number of pediatric patients require invasive treatments such as root canal therapy (RCT) in their permanent dentition, albeit with little information about risk factors such as prior invasive treatments of pulpotomy or pulpectomy in their primary dentition. Therefore, the primary objectives of this study were to determine the number of pediatric patients who have had any type of invasive treatment in their primary teeth, to assess their association with any subsequent invasive treatment (root canal therapy, extractions) in their permanent dentition, and to assess these trends over time. This retrospective study utilized summary data from a clinical pediatric patient pool (ages 0-17) over the period of 2013-2022. This analysis revealed that pediatric patients requiring pulpotomies and pulpectomies in primary dentition declined between 2013 (n = 417, n = 156) and 2022 (n = 250, n = 12), while root canal therapy (RCT) in permanent dentition increased six-fold from n = 54 to n = 330. In addition, few (7.8%) patients with RCT had a previous history of pulpotomy or pulpectomy, which suggests that invasive treatments performed in primary dentition have no direct association with the subsequent need for invasive treatments in permanent dentition, although more research is needed to determine the explanations for these observations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric Reports
Pediatric Reports PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
ABCB1 Polymorphism Is Associated with Higher Carbamazepine Clearance in Children. Should the Definition of Low Birth Weight Be Same in Every Ethnicity Considering the DOHaD Concept? The Use of PediSTAT Application by Paramedics Working in Saudi Arabia to Reduce the Risk of Medication Error for Pediatric Patients. Impact of a Structured Social Skills Training Program on Adolescents and Young Adults with Level 1 Autism. Investigating the Relationship Between Midazolam Serum Concentrations and Paediatric Delirium in Critically Ill Children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1