-
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Dec 2021The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcome of partial pulpotomy, pulpotomy and pulpectomy for treating primary teeth with normal or infected...
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcome of partial pulpotomy, pulpotomy and pulpectomy for treating primary teeth with normal or infected pulp or with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS
Two reviewers on Pubmed and ISI Web of Science performed a comprehensive literature review of publications from 1966 until July 2019. Pico outline was used to facilitate literature research. Among abstracts, publications were selected according to the following criteria: prospective clinical study, correct indication for the performed treatment, clear definition of clinical and/or radiographic success criteria and at least 6-month follow-up period. The strict selection criteria under the keywords "pulpotomy", "partial pulpotomy" and "pulpectomy" resulted in a limited amount of randomised controlled trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CT). Qualitative assessment of the selected clinical studies and level of evidence was included according to the criteria described by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM).
CONCLUSION
Prerequisites for a successful pulpotomy are symptom-free teeth, sterile removal of coronal pulp and haemostasis. Both MTA and formocresol perform well for partial pulpotomies after caries exposure. Formocresol had been the most popular amputation material for pulpotomies. Due to the potential side effects, other medicaments, such as ferric sulfate, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or NaOCl are suggested. Grey and white MTA yeld the same results. Lasers are not recommended due to their large diversity. Regarding pulpectomy, the conditions, procedures, and evaluation for the treatment were not well defined in the studies. Nevertheless, there is evidence to use calcium hydroxide, zinc oxide eugenol paste or iodoform based pastes as root filling materials for non-vital molars. Pulpectomies showed better success rates than pulpotomies. Stainless steel crowns are recommended as definite restorations after both endodontic treatments. Longer follow-up periods, further clinical studies with comparable conditions and clear definition of evaluation criteria are needed to further confirm the results of endodontic treatment in primary teeth.
Topics: Calcium Compounds; Drug Combinations; Humans; Molar; Oxides; Pulpectomy; Pulpotomy; Silicates; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
PubMed: 35034465
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2021.22.04.4 -
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 -
Journal of Dentistry Sep 2022Preservation of pulpal vitality in immature permanent teeth with deep carious lesions is essential to enable further root development and apical closure. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Preservation of pulpal vitality in immature permanent teeth with deep carious lesions is essential to enable further root development and apical closure. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the evidence regarding the efficacy, presented clinical and radiographic success, and bacteriological outcomes of techniques and materials used for deep caries management in vital immature permanent teeth.
DATA
Randomised controlled trials evaluating Vital Pulp Therapy (VPT) for deep caries in immature permanent posterior teeth without history of irreversible pulpitis, and a follow up period of ≥12 months were included. Study characteristics and outcomes of all included studies were summarized. Cochrane's Risk-of-bias tool 2.0 was used to assess the quality of eligible studies. Meta-analyses using a random effects model was performed.
SOURCES
Electronic databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL and Cochrane Library were searched, followed by a manual search.
STUDY SELECTION
Twelve papers were included into the review. Overall success rates were 98%, 93.5%, 93.6% for direct pulp cap (DPC), indirect pulp cap (IPC) and pulpotomy (PP) respectively. Regardless of VPT technique, there were no significant differences between clinical and radiographic success rates. Completion of root development was achieved in more than 83% of the cases in all VPT techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
All treatment modalities for PP were equally efficient with high overall success rates. Biodentine showed high success rates regardless of technique. No significant differences were found in the clinical and radiographic success rates between various follow-up intervals. There are no clear conclusions regarding superiority of either VPT technique on apical closure.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This manuscript systematically evaluates the evidence and summarises all available data on each vital pulp therapy technique and materials used in treatment of deep caries in immature permanent teeth with vital pulps. The limitations in the current scientific literature and recommendations for future research are also highlighted.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Pulp Capping; Dentin; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Pulpotomy
PubMed: 35793760
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104214 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jun 2021: Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in permanent mature teeth is a common indication for nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT), but contemporary studies have reported... (Review)
Review
: Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in permanent mature teeth is a common indication for nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT), but contemporary studies have reported on vital pulp therapy (VPT) applied in such teeth as a less invasive treatment. This systematic review assessed the outcomes of VPT, including partial and full pulpotomy performed with hydraulic calcium silicate cements (HCSCs) in permanent mature posterior teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. : The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The search strategy included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and grey literature electronic databases. The quality assessment of the identified studies followed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias, ROBINS-I and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. : The search of primary databases identified 142 articles, of which 9 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective cohort studies were selected for review. The risk-of-bias was assessed as 'high' or 'serious', 'fair', and 'low' for three, seven and two articles, respectively. One to five years after VPT using HCSCs, the success rates mostly ranged from 78 to 90%. Based on two articles, the outcomes of the VPT and NSRCT were comparable at one and five years. Despite the necessity for the intra-operative pulp assessment in VPT procedures, the majority of the studies did not fully report on this step or on the time needed to achieve hemostasis. Small sample sizes, of under 23 teeth, were reported in three studies. : The reviewed 12 articles reported favorable outcomes of the VPT performed with HCSCs in permanent mature posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with radiographic success in the range of 81 to 90%. Two articles suggested comparable outcomes of the VPT and root canal treatment. Universal case selection and outcome criteria needs to be established for VPT when considered as an alternative to NSRCT. This evidence supports the need for further research comparing longer-term outcomes of both of the treatment modalities.
Topics: Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Prospective Studies; Pulpitis; Pulpotomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34205149
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57060573 -
PloS One 2016Pulpitis is mainly caused by an opportunistic infection of the pulp space with commensal oral microorganisms. Depending on the state of inflammation, different treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Pulpitis is mainly caused by an opportunistic infection of the pulp space with commensal oral microorganisms. Depending on the state of inflammation, different treatment regimes are currently advocated. Predictable vital pulp therapy depends on accurate determination of the pulpal status that will allow repair to occur. The role of several players of the host response in pulpitis is well documented: cytokines, proteases, inflammatory mediators, growth factors, antimicrobial peptides and others contribute to pulpal defense mechanisms; these factors may serve as biomarkers that indicate the status of the pulp. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the presence of biomarkers in pulpitis.
METHODS
The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and other sources were searched for English and non-English articles published through February 2015. Two independent reviewers extracted information regarding study design, tissue or analyte used, outcome measures, results and conclusions for each article. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
From the initial 847 publications evaluated, a total of 57 articles were included in this review. In general, irreversible pulpitis was associated with different expression of various biomarkers compared to normal controls. These biomarkers were significantly expressed not only in pulp tissue, but also in gingival crevicular fluid that can be collected non-invasively, and in dentin fluid that can be analyzed without extirpating the entire pulpal tissue. Such data may then be used to accurately differentiate diseased from healthy pulp tissue. The interplay of pulpal biomarkers and their potential use for a more accurate and biologically based diagnostic tool in endodontics is envisaged.
Topics: Antimicrobial Cationic Peptides; Biomarkers; Cytokines; Databases, Factual; Dental Pulp; Enzymes; Humans; Inflammation; Leukocytes; Peptide Hydrolases
PubMed: 27898727
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167289 -
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 Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2020The objective of the present systematic review is to evaluate the success of pulpotomy in mature permanent teeth presented with irreversible pulpitis. The following... (Review)
Review
The objective of the present systematic review is to evaluate the success of pulpotomy in mature permanent teeth presented with irreversible pulpitis. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Oral and Dentistry Database, Cochrane, and CINAHL plus. We included studies published in the English language only. However, narrative reviews and case reports/series were excluded. The first electronic and hand search yielded a total of 2851 articles. After going through extensive screening and eligibility process, only six articles were finally selected for the review. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 10 years. Randomized controlled trial compared pulpotomy with the root canal treatment and reported comparable and even better success of the pulpotomy (78% success). All the other studies have also shown better clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy (68%-100%). Pulpotomy can be considered an alternative option for mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
PubMed: 33384481
DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_179_19 -
Journal of the American Dental... Dec 2019Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antibiotics for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, symptomatic apical periodontitis, and localized acute apical abscess: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association.
BACKGROUND
Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is an option, antibiotics are often prescribed. The purpose of this review was to summarize available evidence regarding the effect of antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, to treat immunocompetent adults with pulpal and periapical conditions, as well as additional population-level harms associated with antibiotic use.
TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors updated 2 preexisting systematic reviews to identify newly published randomized controlled trials. They also searched for systematic reviews to inform additional harm outcomes. They conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The authors found no new trials via the update of the preexisting reviews. Ultimately, 3 trials and 8 additional reports proved eligible for this review. Trial estimates for all outcomes suggested both a benefit and harm over 7 days (very low to low certainty evidence). The magnitude of additional harms related to antibiotic use for any condition were potentially large (very low to moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Evidence for antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, showed both a benefit and a harm for outcomes of pain and intraoral swelling and a large potential magnitude of effect in regard to additional harm outcomes. The impact of dental antibiotic prescribing requires further research.
Topics: Abscess; Adult; American Dental Association; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Periapical Periodontitis; Pulpitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United States
PubMed: 31761029
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.09.011 -
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 -
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