4.5 Review

Pulpal Response after Acute Dental Injury in the Permanent Dentition: Clinical Implications-A Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 299-308

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.015

关键词

Bacteria and blood supply; crown fractures; dental pulp; root fractures; root resorption; tooth avulsions; tooth luxations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Pulpal reactions after acute dental injury have been puzzling for many clinicians. The management of dental trauma and an understanding of clinical and treatment factors in outcomes arose from multivariate statistical analyses of archive material from Copenhagen. Methods: The aim of this article was to review the works of this period with respect to pulpal reaction after acute mechanical trauma. These traumas include luxation, avulsion, root fracture, and crown fracture. A PubMed search identified other literature where multivariate analysis was used, and these results were compared with earlier pioneering studies. Results and Conclusions: This article will describe pulpal responses after the said acute injuries and outline the competition that takes place between ingrowth of a new neurovascular system into the traumatized tissue versus bacterial invasion. If there is an intact neurovascular supply to the pulp, then the same immunologic defenses that are found in the rest of the body can function and defend against infection. If this is disturbed in any way, alterations in the pulp (eg, pulp canal obliteration, resorption processes) or pulp death (pulp necrosis) will occur. Intermediary stations in pulpal response (ie, transient apical breakdown) mimicked the cardinal signs of pulp necrosis, which could be reversible and lead to pulpal healing. These processes will also be addressed with respect to a more conservative treatment approach. In young patients, it is of the utmost importance that pulp vitality be maintained to ensure continued root growth and development and an intact dentition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据