4.5 Article

Pulp and Periradicular Testing

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages S13-S19

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.047

Keywords

Dental trauma; electric pulp test; laser Doppler flowmetry; pulse oximetry; sensitivity testing; thermal tests; vitality tests

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pulp and periradicular testing is crucial to the initial trauma evaluation and to subsequent monitoring of the traumatized teeth and supporting structures. An accurate diagnosis serves as the basis for therapeutic intervention and helps to ensure that destruction of the dental structures will be minimized and function will be regained. The purpose of this review is to present the current best evidence for accurate diagnostic testing of the pulp and periapex of traumatized teeth. Five databases were searched for literature pertaining to pulpal testing and trauma. Widely recognized textbooks were also consulted. Currently used pulp vitality testing is constrained by its subjective character and by the fact that it is a measure of neuronal status and not true pulpal viability. Tests that measure tissue perfusion more accurately reflect pulpal vitality, but they are not available commercially. This review discusses the specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of commonly used tests, with emphasis on the applicability of certain tests to specific patient presentations in trauma. Factors that influence test selection are discussed, and specific recommendations are made on the basis of best evidence. Although differences exist between the various studies as to the accuracy of commonly used pulpal and periradicular tests, most of these have acceptable predictive value. Pulpal and periradicular tests in the trauma patient should be used in conjunction with clinical and radiographic observations to arrive at a diagnosis and treatment plan. (J Endod 2013;39:S13-S19)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available