-
Archives of Dermatological Research Jul 2023Treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) can help lower the risk of eventual skin cancer and address field pre-cancerization. This review compares the different therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) can help lower the risk of eventual skin cancer and address field pre-cancerization. This review compares the different therapeutic options for actinic keratosis. Databases used include Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2019. Randomized control trials that were related to any approved or recognized treatment for actinic keratosis were included. 1186 studies were found, of which 80 with 6748 patients were included in the analysis. A network meta-analysis was not possible due to interstudy heterogeneity. The greatest degree of improvement was seen with photodynamic therapy (PDT) used adjunctively with other modalities, but this was not significantly different compared to other treatments. PDT, cryotherapy, imiquimod, ingenol mebutate (IMB), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and ablative fractional laser (AFXL), were all non-inferior to one another in terms of percent clearance of AKs, but the lowest rates of clearance were seen with diclofenac sodium. When results were substratified by body site, 5-FU, combination PDT and combination 5-FU with calcipotriol were the most beneficial for AKs on the head and neck, although they often caused the highest proportion of initial side effects. Absence of randomized control trials for surgical treatments and non-ablative laser limits comparison of these treatments to other modalities. Limitations include the lack of standardized outcome reporting limited the comparability of results across trials. The results of this analysis do not account for individual patient risk or cumulative risk for development of skin cancer. At present, PDT, cryotherapy, imiquimod, IMB, 5-FU, TCA, AFXL, and combination treatments are similarly efficacious in reducing AKs in immunocompetent patients.Registration: N/A.
Topics: Humans; Keratosis, Actinic; Imiquimod; Photochemotherapy; Treatment Outcome; Skin Neoplasms; Fluorouracil
PubMed: 36454335
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-022-02490-5 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2020To compare the adjunctive effects of lasers or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adjunctive laser or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in patients with untreated periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
To compare the adjunctive effects of lasers or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two focused questions were addressed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria as follows: in patients with untreated periodontitis, (a) does laser application provide adjunctive effects on probing pocket depth (PPD) changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? and (b) does application of aPDT provide adjunctive effects on PPD changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? Both randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Results of the meta-analysis are expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Out of 1,202 records, 10 articles for adjunctive laser and 8 for adjunctive aPDT were included. With respect to PPD changes, 1 meta-analysis including 2 articles (total n = 42; split-mouth design) failed to identify a statistically significant difference (WMD = 0.35 mm; 95%CI: -0.04/0.73; p = .08) in favour of adjunctive aPDT (wavelength range 650-700 nm). In terms of adjunctive laser application, a high variability of clinical outcomes at 6 months was noted. Two articles included patient-reported outcomes and 10 reported on the presence/absence of harms/adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence on adjunctive therapy with lasers and aPDT is limited by (a) the low number of controlled studies and (b) the heterogeneity of study designs. Patient-reported benefits remain to be demonstrated.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Humans; Lasers; Photochemotherapy; Root Planing
PubMed: 31859395
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13236 -
Journal of Periodontology Jul 2018This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), as an adjunct to non-surgical or surgical therapy, on clinical and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), as an adjunct to non-surgical or surgical therapy, on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in patients with periodontitis or peri-implantitis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up duration ≥ 3 months that evaluated mechanical root/implant surface debridement (i.e., scaling and root planing [SRP] or implant surface scaling [ISS]) versus SRP or ISS plus aPDT for the treatment of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with moderate-to-severe chronic (CP)/aggressive periodontitis (AgP) or peri-implantitis, respectively, were considered eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles published up to and including March 2017. Random-effects meta-analyses were used throughout the review using continuous data (i.e., mean changes from baseline), and pooled estimates were expressed as weighted mean differences with their associated 95% confidence intervals. Additionally, summaries are presented of the included RCTs, critical remarks of the literature, and evidence quality rating/strength of recommendation of laser procedures.
RESULTS
Of 729 potentially eligible articles, 28 papers (26 studies) were included in the review. Individual study outcomes and four sets of meta-analysis showed potential statistical significant benefit of aPDT in improving clinical attachment level (CAL) (non-surgical treatment of AgP) and probing depth (PD) (non-surgical treatment of AgP and CP). However, the comparative differences in clinical outcomes were modest (< 1 mm), and the level of certainty for different therapies was considered low-to-moderate (i.e., more information would be necessary to allow for a reliable and definitive estimation of effect/magnitude of therapies on health outcomes). Overall, most of the strengths of clinical recommendations of aPDT were guided by the expert opinion.
CONCLUSIONS
aPDT may provide similar clinical improvements in PD and CAL when compared with conventional periodontal therapy for both periodontitis and peri-implantitis patients. The restricted base of evidence for some treatment approaches and conditions precludes additional conclusions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Infective Agents; Dental Scaling; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Photochemotherapy; Root Planing; United States
PubMed: 30133749
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.170172 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Viral warts are a common skin condition, which can range in severity from a minor nuisance that resolve spontaneously to a troublesome, chronic condition. Many different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Viral warts are a common skin condition, which can range in severity from a minor nuisance that resolve spontaneously to a troublesome, chronic condition. Many different topical treatments are available.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of local treatments for cutaneous non-genital warts in healthy, immunocompetent adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to May 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2010), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), and CINAHL (from 1981). We searched reference lists of articles and online trials registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical treatments for cutaneous non-genital warts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials and extracted data; a third author resolved any disagreements.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 85 trials involving a total of 8815 randomised participants (26 new studies were included in this update). There was a wide range of different treatments and a variety of trial designs. Many of the studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more areas of trial design.Trials of salicylic acid (SA) versus placebo showed that the former significantly increased the chance of clearance of warts at all sites (RR (risk ratio) 1.56, 95% CI (confidence interval) 1.20 to 2.03). Subgroup analysis for different sites, hands (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.43 to 5.01) and feet (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.55), suggested it might be more effective for hands than feet.A meta-analysis of cryotherapy versus placebo for warts at all sites favoured neither intervention nor control (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.23). Subgroup analysis for different sites, hands (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 15.94) and feet (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.07), again suggested better outcomes for hands than feet. One trial showed cryotherapy to be better than both placebo and SA, but only for hand warts.There was no significant difference in cure rates between cryotherapy at 2-, 3-, and 4-weekly intervals.Aggressive cryotherapy appeared more effective than gentle cryotherapy (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.15), but with increased adverse effects.Meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in effectiveness between cryotherapy and SA at all sites (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.71) or in subgroup analyses for hands and feet.Two trials with 328 participants showed that SA and cryotherapy combined appeared more effective than SA alone (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.43).The benefit of intralesional bleomycin remains uncertain as the evidence was inconsistent. The most informative trial with 31 participants showed no significant difference in cure rate between bleomycin and saline injections (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.78).Dinitrochlorobenzene was more than twice as effective as placebo in 2 trials with 80 participants (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.26).Two trials of clear duct tape with 193 participants demonstrated no advantage over placebo (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.05).We could not combine data from trials of the following treatments: intralesional 5-fluorouracil, topical zinc, silver nitrate (which demonstrated possible beneficial effects), topical 5-fluorouracil, pulsed dye laser, photodynamic therapy, 80% phenol, 5% imiquimod cream, intralesional antigen, and topical alpha-lactalbumin-oleic acid (which showed no advantage over placebo).We did not identify any RCTs that evaluated surgery (curettage, excision), formaldehyde, podophyllotoxin, cantharidin, diphencyprone, or squaric acid dibutylester.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Data from two new trials comparing SA and cryotherapy have allowed a better appraisal of their effectiveness. The evidence remains more consistent for SA, but only shows a modest therapeutic effect. Overall, trials comparing cryotherapy with placebo showed no significant difference in effectiveness, but the same was also true for trials comparing cryotherapy with SA. Only one trial showed cryotherapy to be better than both SA and placebo, and this was only for hand warts. Adverse effects, such as pain, blistering, and scarring, were not consistently reported but are probably more common with cryotherapy.None of the other reviewed treatments appeared safer or more effective than SA and cryotherapy. Two trials of clear duct tape demonstrated no advantage over placebo. Dinitrochlorobenzene (and possibly other similar contact sensitisers) may be useful for the treatment of refractory warts.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Bleomycin; Child; Cryotherapy; Dermatologic Agents; Dinitrochlorobenzene; Fluorouracil; Humans; Interferons; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates; Surgical Tape; Warts
PubMed: 22972052
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001781.pub3 -
Dermatologic Surgery : Official... Jan 2023Treatments for solar lentigines include topical and physical therapies, including chemical peels, lasers, intense pulsed light, and cryotherapy. A direct comparison of...
BACKGROUND
Treatments for solar lentigines include topical and physical therapies, including chemical peels, lasers, intense pulsed light, and cryotherapy. A direct comparison of treatment methods and their efficacy is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To compare treatment efficacy and adverse events for different treatment modalities for lentigines.
METHODS
Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched on August 25, 2021. Studies were included if they met our predetermined population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, study design framework. Results are presented in narrative form.
RESULTS
Forty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 1,763 patients. Overall, combination-based treatments showed the greatest frequency of cases with complete response (65%, n = 299/458), followed by laser-based treatments (43%, n = 395/910), topical retinoids (21%, n = 12/57), cryotherapy (15%, n = 25/169), and peels (6%, n = 8/125). Adverse events occurred most commonly while using topical retinoids (82%, n = 23/28), followed by combination-based treatments (39%, n = 184/466), cryotherapy (33%, n = 47/144), laser-based treatments (23%, n = 173/738), and peels (19%, n = 21/110).
CONCLUSION
Despite heterogeneity of included study designs, patient populations, treatment regimens, and outcome measures, our results suggest that combination-based treatments and laser-based treatments were the most efficacious treatment modalities. Although cryotherapy was previously considered first-line, our results show that it has substantially lower pooled response rates compared with other treatment modalities.
Topics: Humans; Lentigo; Chemexfoliation; Cryotherapy; Photochemotherapy; Retinoids
PubMed: 36533790
DOI: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000003630 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Oct 2021Actinic keratoses (AK) are rough scaly patches that arise on chronically ultraviolet-exposed skin and can progress to keratinocyte carcinoma.
BACKGROUND
Actinic keratoses (AK) are rough scaly patches that arise on chronically ultraviolet-exposed skin and can progress to keratinocyte carcinoma.
OBJECTIVE
This analysis examined the literature related to the management of AK to provide evidence-based recommendations for treatment. Grading, histologic classification, natural history, risk of progression, and dermatologic surveillance of AKs are also discussed.
METHODS
A multidisciplinary Work Group conducted a systematic review to address 5 clinical questions on the management of AKs and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations. Graded recommendations were voted on to achieve consensus.
RESULTS
Analysis of the evidence resulted in 18 recommendations.
LIMITATIONS
This analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time it was conducted. The pragmatic decision to limit the literature review to English language randomized trials may have excluded data published in other languages or limited identification of relevant long-term follow-up data.
CONCLUSIONS
Strong recommendations are made for using ultraviolet protection, topical imiquimod, topical 5-fluorouracil, and cryosurgery. Conditional recommendations are made for the use of photodynamic therapy and diclofenac for the treatment of AK, both individually and as part of combination therapy regimens.
Topics: Diclofenac; Fluorouracil; Humans; Imiquimod; Keratosis, Actinic; Photochemotherapy
PubMed: 33820677
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.082 -
International Journal of Cancer Jul 2017A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the estimates of and definitions for human papillomavirus (HPV) persistence in women following treatment... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the estimates of and definitions for human papillomavirus (HPV) persistence in women following treatment of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN). A total of 45 studies presented data on post-treatment HPV persistence among 6,106 women. Most studies assessed HPV persistence after loop excision (42%), followed by conization (7%), cryotherapy (11%), laser treatment (4%), interferon-alpha, therapeutic vaccination, and photodynamic therapy (2% each) and mixed treatment (38%). Baseline HPV testing was conducted before or at treatment for most studies (96%). Follow-up HPV testing ranged from 1.5 to 80 months after baseline. Median HPV persistence tended to decrease with increasing follow-up time, declining from 27% at 3 months after treatment to 21% at 6 months, 15% at 12 months, and 10% at 24 months. Post-treatment HPV persistence estimates varied widely and were influenced by patient age, HPV-type, detection method, treatment method, and minimum HPV post-treatment testing interval. Loop excision and conization appeared to outperform cryotherapy procedures in terms of their ability to clear HPV infection. This systematic review provides evidence for the substantial heterogeneity in post-treatment HPV DNA testing practices and persistence estimates.
Topics: Female; Human Papillomavirus DNA Tests; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Photochemotherapy; Risk Factors; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 28124442
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30623 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Plaque; Humans; Middle Aged; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontics; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 29291254
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009376.pub2 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Sep 2017Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective treatment for actinic keratoses and early skin cancers, and the only office procedure to control field cancerization.... (Review)
Review
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective treatment for actinic keratoses and early skin cancers, and the only office procedure to control field cancerization. Procedure-associated pain limits widespread PDT use and by early termination of treatment can decrease overall therapeutic efficacy. Here we review and assess reported interventions on PDT-associated pain, in order to identify the most promising methods to manage treatment-associated pain and identify focus for future studies. Literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library by two independent reviewers to select publications that assessed and compared pain quantitatively during PDT treatment for actinic keratoses, basal cell carcinomas, and/or in situ squamous cell carcinomas. A total of 48 studies reporting on pain during PDT were identified and were comprised of two main categories of interventions: pain-controlling therapies and PDT parameter (photosensitizer or photo-irradiation) adjustments. Of these interventions: nerve block, subcutaneous infiltration anesthesia, cold analgesia, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, but not topical anesthetic gels, were associated with less PDT-related pain; 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) tended to be more painful than methyl-5-aminolevulinate (MAL); daylight PDT was less painful than conventional PDT; and lower irradiance delivery produced lower pain scores in general. There is no single crystalized protocol for management of PDT-related pain. Evidence suggests that continuous activation of low levels of PpIX with methods using lower irradiance and possibly shorter incubation times are associated with decreased pain without loss of PDT efficacy. Protocols to reduce pain should be standardized and large controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Keratosis, Actinic; Nerve Block; Pain; Pain Measurement; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Skin Diseases; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 28716738
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2017.07.002 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Mar 2020Any successful endodontic therapy requires elimination of the endodontic biofilms through meticulous root canal disinfection methods. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Any successful endodontic therapy requires elimination of the endodontic biofilms through meticulous root canal disinfection methods. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) are the most common effective irrigants, in removing smear-layer from the coronal and middle thirds of the dental canals but reduced considerably towards the apical one third. In recent years, newly alternative treatment modalities have been proposed, including high-power lasers and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Our work was conducted to evalaute the outcome of root canal disinfection in relation to the efficacy of various treatment modalities. Furthermore, every effort was made to present an overview of the aPDT outcomes, as a model for this application, and to propose laser parameters protocol with positive results.
METHODS
The electronic databases PubMed was searched from January 2013- January 2019. Our inclusive criteria based on laser therapy applications, as a model for root canal disinfection. The search terms utilised various combinations as follows: photodynamic therapy or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy or photoactivated disinfection or light activated disinfection or laser activated disinfection or laser therapy, and endodontic.
RESULTS
The results of this systematic review concluded that the effectiveness of aPDT and various laser wavelengths protocols, in removing endodontic biofilms from infected root canals, remains unattainable.
CONCLUSIONS
Study concluded that the combination of aPDT with antimicrobial irrigants could provide a synergetic effect. However, due to the heterogeneity of the selected studies and their limitations, in terms of lack of standardised protocol or discrepancy in the methodology, authors suggest further validated approaches to achieve optimal outcomes.
Topics: Dental Pulp Cavity; Disinfection; Enterococcus faecalis; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Preparation; Sodium Hypochlorite
PubMed: 31809911
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2019.101611