ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Diagnosis Approaches and Clinical Management of Suspected Vertical Root Fractures: A Questionnaire-Based Study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnosing and clinically managing vertical root fractures (VRF) present ongoing challenges for dentists. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic approaches and the clinical management employed by Brazilian dentists when confronted with suspected cases of VRF. Material and Methods: Online questionnaires were sent to dentists via social media and email. The questionnaire consisted of seven inquiries about the diagnosis and clinical management of suspected VRF cases. The data were evaluated descriptively and statistically using the Chi-square, Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests ( Results: A total of 517 dentists answered the questionnaire, 72.3% were Endodontists, 17.41% were general practitioners, and 10.25% were specialists in other dental fields. A narrow and deep periodontal pocket was the most frequently reported clinical sign (71.8%), while a halo-shaped radiolucency was the most common radiographic finding reported (59.3%). 85.7% of the participants reported requesting a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan to VRF suspected cases, and the combination of four complementary exams was most frequently selected by dentists (23.59%). Professional qualification influenced the number of clinical signals and of auxiliary exams reported in VRF suspected cases ( Conclusions: A variety of clinical and radiographic signals and symptoms were reported in suspected VRF cases. CBCT was the most commonly requested auxiliary exam. Professional qualification influenced the number of reported signals and symptoms, the number of auxiliary exams, and the clinical management strategies in suspected VRF cases.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.