-
The Journal of Clinical Pediatric... 2019This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed clinical, radiographic and functional retention outcomes in immature necrotic permanent teeth treated either with pulp... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed clinical, radiographic and functional retention outcomes in immature necrotic permanent teeth treated either with pulp revascularization or apexification after a minimum of three months to determine which one provides the best results. The literature was screened via PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases up to June 2017 to select observational studies that compared pulp revascularization and apexification treatments assessing clinical, radiographic and functional retention outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed screening and evaluation of articles. A total of 231 articles were retrieved from databases, wherein only four articles were selected for full-text analyses. After exclusion criteria, three studies remained in quantitative and qualitative analyses. Pooled-effect estimates were obtained comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes ('overall outcome') and functional retention rates between apexification and pulp revascularization treatment. The meta-analysis comparing apexification vs. revascularization for 'overall outcome' (Z=0.113, p=0.910, RR=1.009, 95%CI:0.869-1.171) and functional retention rates (Z=1.438, p=0.150, RR=1.069, 95%CI:0.976-1.172) showed no statistically significant differences between the treatments. All studies were classified as high quality. The current literature regarding the clinical, radiographic and functional retention outcomes in immature necrotic permanent teeth treated either with pulp revascularization or apexification is limited. Based on our meta-analysis, the results do not favor one treatment modality over the other.
Topics: Apexification; Dental Pulp; Dental Pulp Necrosis; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Tooth Apex
PubMed: 31560588
DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-43.5.1 -
Journal of the American Dental... Feb 2023The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.
TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; American Dental Association; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Tooth, Deciduous; Glass Ionomer Cements
PubMed: 36610925
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2022.09.012 -
Journal of Endodontics Aug 2020We aimed to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2 irrigants routinely used in root canal therapy of permanent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
We aimed to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2 irrigants routinely used in root canal therapy of permanent teeth.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched for randomized controlled trials published until March 2020. The meta-analysis of relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) was performed using a random effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis was performed for culture and molecular methods of bacterial detection.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 2110 records without duplicates. Eight studies were eligible for a systematic review. No significant differences in the incidence of samples with positive bacterial growth after irrigation (RR = 1.003; 95% CI, 0.729-1.380; P = .987) and mean bacterial number changes (SMD = 0.311; 95% CI, -0.368 to 0.991; P = .369) were observed between CHX and NaOCl in the culture and molecular subgroups. Heterogeneity in RR (I = 0%, P = .673) was low among studies, whereas considerable heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of SMD (I = 76.336%, P = .005).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that both CHX and NaOCl can reduce bacterial infections after irrigation without any significant difference in antimicrobial efficacy between them. Although CHX and NaOCl showed similar efficacy, their molecular mechanisms were different. Therefore, they can be used as the main antibacterial root canal irrigants. However, our results were limited by inconsistencies among retrieved articles and a lack of clinically relevant outcomes. Further well-designed clinical studies are warranted to supplement our results.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlorhexidine; Dental Pulp Cavity; Enterococcus faecalis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Therapy; Sodium Hypochlorite
PubMed: 32413440
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.05.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth. Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2). Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Crowns; Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dentin; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 34280957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013039.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root-filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite, directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth, and may influence durability and cost. The decision to use a post and core in addition to the crown is clinician driven. The comparative clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root-filled teeth is unknown. This review updates the original, which was published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME. We also searched the reference lists of articles and ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration or indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trial and assessed its risk of bias. We carried out data analysis using the 'treatment as allocated' patient population, expressing estimates of intervention effect for dichotomous data as risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. None experienced a catastrophic failure (i.e. when the restoration cannot be repaired), although only 104 teeth were included in the final, three-year assessment. There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years. The quality of the evidence for these outcomes is very low. There was no evidence available for any of our secondary outcomes: patient satisfaction and quality of life, incidence or recurrence of caries, periodontal health status, and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available, clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.
Topics: Adult; Crowns; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Post and Core Technique; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Root; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 26403154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009109.pub3 -
Journal of Endodontics May 2017The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following clinical question: Which is the best treatment option for a pulpally involved tooth? (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following clinical question: Which is the best treatment option for a pulpally involved tooth?
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane, PubMed (MEDLINE), and ScienceDirect databases between December 2015 and February 2016. A manual search was also performed. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies performed on humans with at least 1 year of follow-up and published within the last 10 years. Two researchers independently screened the title and abstract of every article identified in the search in order to establish its eligibility. The selected articles were classified into different levels of evidence by means of the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy criteria.
RESULTS
Sixty articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The survival rate of single-tooth implants was greater than the success rate of the distinct conservative treatments. However, among comparative studies, no important differences between both treatments were observed until at least 8 years later.
CONCLUSIONS
The endodontic treatment and the implant placement are both valid and complementary options for planning oral rehabilitation. Although a level B recommendation can be stated, these results come from retrospective comparative studies because there is a lack of randomized clinical studies comparing both types of therapeutic options.
Topics: Apicoectomy; Dental Implantation; Dental Pulp Diseases; Humans; Retreatment; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 28343928
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.01.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for teeth with these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local, operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonies within both the individual and the community. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 February 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 February 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 February 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 February 2018), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 26 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. A grey literature search was conducted using OpenGrey (to 26 February 2018) and ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 26 February 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MD) (standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data. A fixed-effect model was used in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials in this review, with 62 participants included in the analyses. Both trials were conducted in university dental schools in the USA and compared the effects of oral penicillin V potassium (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention (total or partial pulpectomy) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. The patients included in these trials had no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). We assessed one study as having a high risk of bias and the other study as having unclear risk of bias.The primary outcome variables reported in both studies were participant-reported pain and swelling (one trial also reported participant-reported percussion pain). One study reported the type and number of analgesics taken by participants. One study recorded the incidence of postoperative endodontic flare-ups (people who returned with symptoms that necessitated further treatment). Adverse effects, as reported in one study, were diarrhoea (one participant, placebo group) and fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant, antibiotic group). Neither study reported quality of life measurements.Objective 1: systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessTwo studies provided data for the comparison between systemic antibiotics (penicillin VK) and a matched placebo for adults with acute apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention. Participants in one study all underwent a total pulpectomy of the affected tooth, while participants in the other study had their tooth treated by either partial or total pulpectomy. Participants in both trials received oral analgesics. There were no statistically significant differences in participant-reported measures of pain or swelling at any of the time points assessed within the review. The MD for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The SMD for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The body of evidence was assessed as at very low quality.Objective 2: systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessWe found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-quality evidence that is insufficient to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics on adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Penicillin V; Periapical Abscess; Periapical Periodontitis; Pulpectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothache
PubMed: 30259968
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010136.pub3 -
Journal of the American Dental... Nov 2019An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and...
Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on antibiotic use for the urgent management of pulpal- and periapical-related dental pain and intraoral swelling: A report from the American Dental Association.
BACKGROUND
An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with or without symptomatic apical periodontitis, pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, or pulp necrosis and localized acute apical abscess using antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) in immunocompetent adults.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors conducted a search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve evidence on benefits and harms associated with antibiotic use. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and the Evidence-to-Decision framework.
RESULTS
The panel formulated 5 clinical recommendations and 2 good practice statements, each specific to the target conditions, for settings in which DCDT is and is not immediately available. With likely negligible benefits and potentially large harms, the panel recommended against using antibiotics in most clinical scenarios, irrespective of DCDT availability. They recommended antibiotics in patients with systemic involvement (for example, malaise or fever) due to the dental conditions or when the risk of experiencing progression to systemic involvement is high.
CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Evidence suggests that antibiotics for the target conditions may provide negligible benefits and probably contribute to large harms. The expert panel suggests that antibiotics for target conditions be used only when systemic involvement is present and that immediate DCDT should be prioritized in all cases.
Topics: Adult; American Dental Association; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Humans; Periapical Abscess; Toothache
PubMed: 31668170
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.08.020 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2022Treatment planning is key to clinical success. Permanent teeth diagnosed with "irreversible pulpitis" have long been implied to have an irreversibly damaged dental pulp... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatment planning is key to clinical success. Permanent teeth diagnosed with "irreversible pulpitis" have long been implied to have an irreversibly damaged dental pulp that is beyond repair and warranting root canal treatment. However, newer clinical approaches such as pulpotomy, a minimally invasive and biologically based procedure have re-emerged to manage teeth with pulpitis. The primary aim of the study was to conduct a meta-analysis to comprehensively estimate the overall success rate of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis as a result of carious pulp exposure. The secondary aim of the study was to investigate the effect of predictors such as symptoms, root apex development (closed versus open), and type of pulp capping material on the success rate of pulpotomy. Articles were searched using PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases, until January 2021. Outcomes were calculated by pooling the success rates with a random effect model. Comparison between the different subgroups was conducted using the z statistic test for proportion with significance set at alpha = 0.05. A total of 1,116 records were retrieved and 11 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled success rate for pulpotomy in teeth with irreversible pulpitis was 86% [95% CI: 0.76-0.92; I = 81.9%]. Additionally, prognostic indicators of success were evaluated. Stratification of teeth based on (1) symptoms demonstrated that teeth with symptomatic and asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis demonstrated success rate of 84% and 91% respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.18) using z-score analysis; (2) open apex teeth demonstrated a significantly greater success rate (96%) compared to teeth with closed apex (83%) (p = 0.02), and (3) pulp capping materials demonstrated that Biodentine yielded significantly better success rates compared to Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA), calcium hydroxide, and Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM.) Collectively, this is the first meta-analytical study to determine the clinical outcome of pulpotomy for carious teeth with irreversible pulpitis and it's predictors for success. Moreover, we identify the stage of root development and type of biomaterial as predictors for success of pulpotomy.
Topics: Humans; Pulpotomy; Pulpitis; Dentition, Permanent; Calcium Hydroxide; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 36385132
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20918-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, tooth cracks or chips, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. This review updates the previous version published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit or over two or more visits, with or without medication, makes any difference in term of effectiveness or complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 14 June 2016. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of people needing RoCT. We excluded surgical endodontic treatment. The outcomes of interest were tooth extraction for endodontic problems; radiological failure after at least one year, i.e. periapical radiolucency; postoperative pain; swelling or flare-up; painkiller use; sinus track or fistula formation; and complications (composite outcome including any adverse event).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected data using a specially designed extraction form. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane tool and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence using GRADE criteria. When valid and relevant data were collected, we undertook a meta-analysis of the data using the random-effects model. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses for necrotic and vital teeth.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs in the review, with a total of 3780 participants, of whom we analysed 3751. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, 14 at high risk, and eight as unclear.Only one study reported data on tooth extraction due to endodontic problems. This study found no difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits (1/117 single-visit participants lost a tooth versus 2/103 multiple-visit participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 4.78; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 1493 participants, 11 studies, I = 18%; low-quality evidence); immediate postoperative pain (dichotomous outcome) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 1560 participants, 9 studies, I = 33%; moderate-quality evidence); swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.81; 281 participants, 4 studies, I = 0%; low-quality evidence); sinus tract or fistula formation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.48; 345 participants, 2 studies, I = 0%; low-quality evidence); or complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1686 participants, 10 studies, I = 18%; moderate-quality evidence).The studies suggested people undergoing RoCT in a single visit may be more likely to experience pain in the first week than those whose RoCT was over multiple visits (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.28; 1383 participants, 8 studies, I = 54%), though the quality of the evidence for this finding is low.Moderate-quality evidence showed people undergoing RoCT in a single visit were more likely to use painkillers than those receiving treatment over multiple visits (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.45; 648 participants, 4 studies, I = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment) is better than the other. Neither can prevent all short- and long-term complications. On the basis of the available evidence, it seems likely that the benefit of a single-visit treatment, in terms of time and convenience, for both patient and dentist, has the cost of a higher frequency of late postoperative pain (and as a consequence, painkiller use).
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appointments and Schedules; Dental Pulp Necrosis; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Office Visits; Pain, Postoperative; Pulpitis; Radiography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Canal Therapy; Tooth Extraction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27905673
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005296.pub3