Outcomes of Primary Endodontic Therapy Provided by Endodontic Specialists Compared with Other Providers

Introduction The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of initial nonsurgical root canal therapy for different tooth types provided by both endodontists and other providers. Methods By using an insurance company database, 487,476 initial nonsurgical root canal therapy procedures were followed from the time of treatment to the presence of an untoward event indicated by Current Dental Terminology codes for retreatment, apical surgery, or extraction. Population demographics were computed for provider type and tooth location. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated for 1, 5, and 10 years. Hazard ratios for provider type and tooth location were calculated by using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results The survival of all teeth collectively was 98% at 1 year, 92% at 5 years, and 86% at 10 years. Significant differences in survival on the basis of provider type were noted for molars at 5 years and for all tooth types at 10 years. The greatest difference discovered was 5% higher survival rate at 10 years for molars treated by endodontists. A hazard ratio of 1.394 was found when comparing other providers\u27 success with that of endodontists within this 10-year molar group. Conclusions These findings show that survival rates of endodontically treated teeth are high at 10 years after treatment regardless of provider type. Molars treated by endodontists after 10 years have significantly higher survival rates than molars treated by non-endodontists

Fertility Fraud: The Child\u27s Claims

A shocking number of fertility doctors surreptitiously use their own sperm during insemination procedures. Courts and commentators have explained how medical malpractice and common-law tort claims can provide the mother with remedies. The children of fertility fraud have received less attention. This Essay is the first to systematically analyze the potential claims of these children, whose identities may be shattered by discovering the truth about their biological father. It concludes that creative use of existing common-law torts can provide remedies for children of fertility fraud

Fear of an Undeterrable Other

America is presently fighting a war on terror and a war on sex offenders. In each, the government openly detains hundreds of individuals not for what they have done, but for what they might do. Some warn that this greatest restriction on liberty may expand to other types of people. This Article examines the risk of such expansion by putting our current wars in historical perspective. The two main conclusions are: (1) some categories of people detained in prior periods are not being detained today; and (2) the risk of expansion is real but lower than previously suggested

Toward a General Theory of Standards of Proof

Which standard of proof is best for a particular type of case This deceptively simple question has been much discussed but the current state of understanding is unsatisfactory Statisticians posed a general answer philosophers and others launched an assault on that answer practically oriented scholars draw on both strains unsystematically and courts generally offer little or no reasoning for their decisions The goal of this article is to outline a systematic and complete justification for selecting one probabilistic standard of proof over another By training a microscope on one small corner of the law incapacity will contests this article demonstrates the relevance of old factors identifies several new factors and integrates the factors into an approach that will hopefully guide future inquiry One important implication is that the choice of proof standard will almost necessarily be tentative too much is unknown or unknowabl

Of Death and Delusion: What Survives Kahler v. Kansas

Mental illness is not a crime. That fundamental proposition is threatened by the Supreme Court\u27s recent decision in Kahler v. Kansas, which allows states to abolish the insanity defense. This Essay presents three examples of absurd and discriminatory results that could follow. But the conclusion is a positive one: constitutional constraints not considered in Kahler-the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment-should prevent the worst results from materializing

Delineating Sexual Dangerousness

Only “dangerous” individuals may be indefinitely detained. Is a one percent chance of a future crime clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness? For sex offenders, fear and uncertainty in case law leave open this passage to limbo. This Article closes it. The due process balancing test used to evaluate standards of proof provides the framework. This Article explains the relationship between the standard of proof and the definition of “dangerous” and argues that only an approach combining the two is consistent with the Constitution. Applying decision theory with assumptions favoring the government, this Article calculates a minimum likelihood of recidivism for commitment. Of the twenty jurisdictions with sex offender commitment, just one requires something close to that constitutional floor. Thousands have been detained applying unconstitutional standards, and the vast majority remains so