Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Relationship between the difference in electric pulp test values and the diagnostic type of pulpitis

  • Sui, Huachao1
  • Lv, Yangyang2
  • Xiao, Mo1
  • Zhou, Liwen1
  • Qiao, Feng3
  • Zheng, Jinxin4
  • Sun, Cuicui1
  • Fu, Jieni1
  • Chen, Yufan1
  • Liu, Yimeng1
  • Zhou, Jie5
  • Wu, Ligeng1
  • 1 Tianjin Medical University, #12 Qi Xiang Tai Road, He Ping District, Tianjin, 300070, China , Tianjin (China)
  • 2 Wuxi Stomatology Hospital, Jiangsu, China , Jiangsu (China)
  • 3 Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China , Tianjin (China)
  • 4 Nankai University, Tianjin, China , Tianjin (China)
  • 5 Wuqing People Hospital, Tianjin, China , Tianjin (China)
Published Article
BMC Oral Health
Springer (Biomed Central Ltd.)
Publication Date
Jul 10, 2021
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01696-9
Springer Nature
  • Research


BackgroundAccording to the diagnosis criteria of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE), sensitive responses to cold and/or heat tests of suspected teeth compared with those of control teeth can be used for the diagnosis of pulpitis, but the role of electric pulp test (EPT) is not mentioned. It is believed that EPT has some limitations in determining the vitality of the pulp. The aim of this study was to explore the association between the difference in EPT values and the differential diagnoses of reversible pulpitis (RP) and symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIRP) caused by dental caries.MethodsA total of 203 cases with pulpitis caused by dental caries were included. A diagnosis of pulpitis was made on the basis of the diagnostic criteria of AAE. Patient demographic and clinical examination data were collected. The EPT values of the suspected teeth and control teeth were measured, and the differences between them were calculated. The correlation between the difference in the EPT values and diagnosis of pulpitis was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.ResultsIn the 203 cases (78 males and 125 females; 115 cases of RP, 88 cases of SIRP; 9 anterior teeth, 59 premolars, and 135 molars), the mean patient age was 34.04 ± 13.02 (standard deviation) years. The unadjusted (crude) model, model 1 (adjusted for age), model 2 (adjusted for age and sex), and model 3 (adjusted for age, sex, and tooth type) were established for the statistical analyses. In model 3 [odds ratio (OR) = 1.025; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.002–1.050; P = 0.035], the difference in EPT values between RP and SIRP was statistically significant. However, the areas under the curve of predictive probability of the crude model, model 1, model 2, and model 3 were 0.565, 0.570, 0.585, and 0.617, respectively, showing that the model accuracy was low. The P-value for the trend in differences between the EPT values as a categorical variable showed that the differences in the EPT values, comparing RP and SIRP, were not statistically significant.ConclusionsBased on the present data, the difference in EPT values was not sufficient to differentiate RP from SIRP.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times