-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the... (Review)
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, coronal crack or fracture, 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. RoCT can be carried out with a single-visit approach, which involves root canal system obturation (filling and sealing) directly after instrumentation and irrigation, or with a multiple-visits approach, in which the treatment is completed in two or more sessions and obturation is performed in the last session. This review updates the previous versions published in 2007 and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits, with or without medication, in people aged over 10 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 25 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people needing RoCT comparing completion of RoCT in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. tooth extraction and 2. radiological failure after at least one year (i.e. periapical radiolucency). Our secondary outcomes were 3. postoperative and postobturation pain; 4. swelling or flare-up; 5. analgesic use and 6. presence of sinus track or fistula after at least one month. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We excluded five studies that were included in the previous version of the review because they did not meet the current standard of care (i.e. rubber dam isolation and irrigation with sodium hypochlorite).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies with 5805 participants and 5693 teeth analysed. We judged 10 studies at low risk of bias, 17 at high risk of bias and 20 at unclear risk of bias. Only two studies reported data on tooth extraction. We found no evidence of a difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits, but we had very low certainty about the findings (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 2.50; I = 0%; 2 studies, 402 teeth). We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; I = 0%; 13 studies, 1505 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence). We found evidence of a higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple visit groups (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.09; I = 18%; 5 studies, 638 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants reporting pain until 72 hours postobturation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; I = 70%; 12 studies, 1329 teeth; low-certainty evidence), pain intensity until 72 hours postobturation (mean difference (MD) 0.26, 95% CI -4.76 to 5.29; I = 98%; 12 studies, 1258 teeth; low-certainty evidence) or pain at one week postobturation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.67; I = 61%; 9 studies, 1139 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.16 to 1.92; I = 0%; 6 studies; 605 teeth; very low-certainty evidence), analgesic use (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.75 to 2.09; I = 36%; 6 studies, 540 teeth; very low-certainty evidence) or sinus tract or fistula presence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.28; I = 0%; 5 studies, 650 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found no differences between single-visit and multiple-visit RoCT for considered outcomes other than proportion of participants reporting post-treatment pain within one week, which was higher in the single-visit groups for vital teeth (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; I = 0%; 2 studies, 316 teeth), and when instrumentation was mechanical (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.92; I = 56%; 2 studies, 278 teeth).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
As in the previous two versions of the review, there is currently no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit RoCT) is more effective than the other. Neither regimen can prevent pain and other complications in the 12-month postoperative period. There was moderate-certainty evidence of higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple-visit groups. In contrast to the results of the last version of the review, there was no difference in analgesic use.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Dentition, Permanent; Root Canal Therapy; Tooth Extraction; Analgesics; Pain
PubMed: 36512807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005296.pub4 -
Journal of Endodontics Jul 2017Similar to other tissues, the dental pulp mounts an inflammatory reaction as a way to eliminate pathogens and stimulate repair. Pulp inflammation is prerequisite for... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Similar to other tissues, the dental pulp mounts an inflammatory reaction as a way to eliminate pathogens and stimulate repair. Pulp inflammation is prerequisite for dentin pulp complex repair and regeneration; otherwise, chronic disease or pulp necrosis occurs. Evaluation of pulp inflammation severity is necessary to predict the clinical success of maintaining pulp vitality. Clinical limitations to evaluating in situ inflammatory status are well-described. A molecular approach that aids clinical distinction between reversible and irreversible pulpitis could improve the success rate of vital pulp therapy. The aim of this article is to review inflammatory mediator expression in the context of clinical diagnosis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published between 1970 and December 2016. Only published studies of inflammatory mediator expression related to clinical diagnosis were eligible for inclusion and analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two articles were analyzed. Two molecular approaches were described by study methods, protein expression analysis and gene expression analysis. Our review indicates that interleukin-8, matrix metalloproteinase 9, tumor necrosis factor-α, and receptor for advanced glycation end products expression increase at both the gene and protein levels during inflammation.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical irreversible pulpitis is related to specific levels of inflammatory mediator expression. The difference in expression between reversible and irreversible disease is both quantitative and qualitative. On the basis of our analysis, in situ quantification of inflammatory mediators may aid in the clinical distinction between reversible and irreversible pulpitis.
Topics: Biomarkers; Dental Pulp; Humans; Pulpitis
PubMed: 28527838
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.02.009 -
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... Jul 2018Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Dental Care; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29990391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2 -
International Endodontic Journal Oct 2023The diagnosis of the status of the inflamed pulp is essential in clinical diagnosis and treatment provision. There are a limited number of well-designed and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of the status of the inflamed pulp is essential in clinical diagnosis and treatment provision. There are a limited number of well-designed and well-executed clinical trials on the diagnosis of the true status of the pulp.
OBJECTIVES
Three PICO questions were formulated and agreed a priori by the European Society of Endodontology to evaluate the clinical tests for sensibility testing, determination of biomarkers and pulp bleeding with regard to their suitability to correctly diagnose the condition of the pulp tissue for the development of S3-Level guidelines.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 21 January 2022. Additionally, a hand search was performed, and the contents of the major subject journals were also examined. Eligibility criteria followed the proposed PICO questions. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction and appraising the included studies; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for noncomparative, nonrandomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale adapted for cross-sectional studies.
RESULTS
In total, 28 studies out of 29 publications were considered eligible and were included in the review. Twelve studies were identified to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the pulp vitality. Ten studies fulfilled the criteria to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the pulpal conditions, while 6 studies investigating the expression of biomarkers were eligible. Three studies addressing the prognostic factors and therapeutic interventions relating to pulpal status were included.
DISCUSSION
The core problem in pulp diagnostics is that a reliable reference standard is lacking under clinical conditions. Based on limited evidence, the most promising current approach seems to define a combination of different clinical tests and symptoms, probably in future including molecular diagnosis ("diagnostic package") will be required to ascertain the best possible strategy to clinically diagnose true pulpal conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
The effectiveness of diagnosing pulpitis is low due to limited scientific evidence regarding the accuracy and reproducibility of diagnostic tests. There is a lack of evidence to determine the true status of the pulp or to identify prognostic indicators allowing for a reliable pre-operative estimation of the outcome of vital pulp treatment.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO database (CRD42021265366).
Topics: Humans; Pulpitis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Reproducibility of Results; Dental Pulp; Dental Pulp Diseases; Biomarkers
PubMed: 35536159
DOI: 10.1111/iej.13762 -
Journal of the American Dental... Jan 2023Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction and in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US Clinical Trials registry through November 21, 2020. The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long- vs short-acting injectable anesthetics to reduce pain after tooth extraction (systematic review 1) and evaluated the effect of topical anesthetics in patients with symptomatic pulpitis (systematic review 2). Pairs of reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs comparing long- vs short-acting local anesthetics suggest that bupivacaine may decrease the use of rescue analgesia and may not result in additional adverse effects (low certainty evidence). Bupivacaine probably reduces the amount of analgesic consumption compared with lidocaine with epinephrine (mean difference, -1.91 doses; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.46; moderate certainty) and mepivacaine (mean difference, -1.58 doses; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.95; moderate certainty). Five RCTs suggest that both benzocaine 10% and 20% may increase the number of people experiencing pain reduction compared with placebo when managing acute irreversible pulpitis (low certainty).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Bupivacaine may be superior to lidocaine with epinephrine and mepivacaine with regard to time to and amount of analgesic consumption. Benzocaine may be superior to placebo in reducing pain for 20 through 30 minutes after application.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Benzocaine; Bupivacaine; Epinephrine; Lidocaine; Mepivacaine; Pulpitis
PubMed: 36608963
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2022.10.014 -
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 -
International Endodontic Journal Oct 2023Inflammatory biomarkers are potentially useful targets for pulpal diagnostic tests that can identify pulp status and predict vital pulp treatment (VPT) outcome, however,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory biomarkers are potentially useful targets for pulpal diagnostic tests that can identify pulp status and predict vital pulp treatment (VPT) outcome, however, their accuracy is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
(1) Calculate sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of previously investigated pulpitic biomarkers; (2) Determine if biomarker levels discriminate between clinical diagnoses of pulpitis based on the presence or absence of spontaneous pain (3) Evaluate if biomarker level can predict VPT outcome.
METHODS
Searches: PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid SP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus in May 2023.
INCLUSION
prospective and retrospective observational studies and randomized trials. Participants were humans with vital permanent teeth and a well-defined pulpal diagnosis.
EXCLUSION
deciduous teeth, in vitro and animal studies. Risk of bias was assessed with modified-Downs and Black quality assessment checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using bivariate random effect model in Meta-DiSc 2.0 and RevMan and the quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
RESULTS
Fifty-six studies were selected, reporting >70 individual biomolecules investigating pulpal health and disease at the gene and protein level. Most studies were of low and fair quality. Among the biomolecules investigated, IL-8 and IL-6 demonstrated a level of diagnostic accuracy with high sensitivity, specificity and DOR to discriminate between healthy pulps and those exhibiting spontaneous pain suggestive of IRP (low-certainty evidence). However, none was shown to have high DOR and the ability to discriminate between pulpitic states (very low certainty evidence). Limited data suggests high levels of matrix metalloproteinase 9 correlate with poorer outcomes of full pulpotomy.
DISCUSSION
The inability of identified molecular inflammatory markers to discriminate between dental pulps with spontaneous and non-spontaneous pain should shift the focus to improved study quality or the pursuit of other molecules potentially associated with healing and repair.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence suggests IL-8 and IL-6 demonstrated level of diagnostic accuracy to discriminate between healthy pulps and those exhibiting spontaneous pain. There is a need for standardized biomarker diagnostic and prognostic studies focusing on solutions that can accurately determine the degree of pulp inflammation.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021259305.
Topics: Humans; Pulpitis; Interleukin-6; Prospective Studies; Interleukin-8; Retrospective Studies; Biomarkers; Pain
PubMed: 37392154
DOI: 10.1111/iej.13950 -
Journal of Education and Health... 2023Medicinal plants and herbal drugs are being used increasingly as part of primary health care in most parts of the world. As important adjunctive and alternative... (Review)
Review
Medicinal plants and herbal drugs are being used increasingly as part of primary health care in most parts of the world. As important adjunctive and alternative treatments for oral health care, herbal products' use may continue to increase and become more widespread. The objective of this study is to present a comprehensive systematic review of the current published literature on the effectiveness of medicinal plants and herbal products employed to improve oral health in adolescents with a health promotion approach. The systematic review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The keywords "herbal medicine," "herbal extract," "herbal supplements," "plant extract," "natural drug," "pulpitis," "dental caries," "oral viral diseases," and "abscess" were used in combination with the Boolean operators OR and AND. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The search yielded 49 original research studies. A total of 22 studies had low or unclear risk bias. The geographical distribution of included studies was primarily concentrated on western countries. Overall, studies reported herbal product users' age, ranging from young adults aged 18 years to elderly people aged 75 years or older. Most studies reported multiple compounds, including herbal drugs and herbal extracts. Chamomile and Aloe vera were the most frequently reported herbal compounds. The most commonly described herbal products to treat oral diseases were gels, mouth rinses, and pastes. The studies included a range of people with oral diseases, including periodontal and gingival diseases, recurrent aphthous stomatitis, oral lichen planus, and oral candidiasis. Herbal product interventions were found to be effective and safe alternatives for oral health care. One of the most important goals of the World Health Organization (until 2015) is the oral health index, so it is important that dental services be followed up more seriously. Considering the problems in reaching this goal of the World Health Organization in our country, herbal products have the ability to improve clinical oral health outcomes in adolescents. Limited adverse side effects indicate the overall safety of these treatments for a wide range of oral diseases. Therefore, the use of medicinal plants as well as alternative medicine is one of the useful methods in achieving this important goal of public health.
PubMed: 38023092
DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1297_22 -
Journal of Dentistry Sep 2014Pulpotomy is a common procedure to treat asymptomatic reversible pulpitis in primary molars. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review and a network... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Pulpotomy is a common procedure to treat asymptomatic reversible pulpitis in primary molars. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review and a network meta-analysis to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of different pulpotomy procedures in primary molars.
DATA
Three authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
SOURCES
An electronic literature search was performed within MEDLINE (via PubMed), ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalKey databases until December 2012. Medications for pulpotomy including formocresol, ferric sulfate, calcium hydroxide, and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and laser pulpotomy are compared using Bayesian network meta-analyses. The outcome is the odds ratio for clinical and radiographic failure including premature tooth loss at 12 and 24 months after treatments amongst different treatment procedures. 37 studies were included in the systematic review, and 22 of them in the final network meta-analyses. After 18-24 months, in terms of treatment failure, the odds ratio for calcium hydroxide vs. formocresol was 1.94 [95% credible interval (CI): 1.11, 3.25]; 3.38 (95% CI: 1.37, 8.61) for lasers vs. formocresol; 2.16 (95% CI: 1.12, 4.31) for calcium hydroxide vs. ferric sulfate; 3.73 (95% CI: 1.27, 11.67) for lasers vs. ferric sulfate; 0.47 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.83) for MTA vs. calcium hydroxide; 3.76 (95% CI: 1.39, 10.08) for lasers vs.
MTA CONCLUSIONS
After 18-24 months, formocresol, ferric sulfate, and MTA showed significantly better clinical and radiographic outcomes than calcium hydroxide and laser therapies in primary molar pulpotomies.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The network meta-analyses showed that MTA is the first choice for primary molar pulpotomies. However, if treatment cost is an issue, especially when the treated primary molars are going to be replaced by permanent teeth, ferric sulfate may be the choice.
Topics: Aluminum Compounds; Calcium Compounds; Calcium Hydroxide; Drug Combinations; Ferric Compounds; Formocresols; Humans; Laser Therapy; Molar; Oxides; Pulpitis; Pulpotomy; Root Canal Irrigants; Silicates; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24513112
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.001