Influence of the apical limit of instrumentation and photodynamic therapy on the postoperative pain of lower molars with asymptomatic apical periodontitis

In vitro evaluation of filling material removal and apical debris extrusion after retreatment using Reciproc blue, Hyflex EDM and ProTaper retreatment files

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the amount of remaining filing material and apical debris extrusion after retreatment using Reciproc Blue, Hyflex EDM and ProTaper Retreatment Files.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six extracted permanent mandibular first molars with moderately curved mesial roots were selected. Mesiobuccal canals were prepared using the ProTaper Next system up to size X2 and filled using gutta-percha and Adseal sealer via cold lateral compaction. Teeth were randomly divided into three equal groups (n = 12): Group 1: Reciproc Blue (RB)(VDW, Germany), Group 2: Hyflex EDM (HEDM)(Coltene/Whaledent, Switzerland), Group 3: ProTaper Universal Retreatment file system + ProTaper Next file system (PTUR + PTN)( Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland). Eppendorf tubes were used to collect the apically extruded debris. Cone-beam computed tomographic scans were taken prior to and after retreatment and the volume of remaining filling material was assessed at the coronal, middle and apical levels. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Friedman's test and Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. Significance level was set at p value 0.05.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in the reduction of the volume of the filling material or in the amount of apically extruded debris.

CONCLUSION

All the tested filing systems showed similar efficacy in removing the filling material, however, none of them could achieve its complete removal. Apical extrusion of debris occurred with all the systems used with no significant difference between the three groups.

Effectiveness of adjunct therapy for the treatment of apical periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adjunct therapy refers to any intracanal procedure going beyond chemomechanical preparation with instruments and traditionally delivered irrigants (excluding interim dressings). It is not clear whether and which of these adjunct therapies have a significant impact on the outcome of root canal treatment [healing of apical periodontitis (AP) and other patient-related outcomes].

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to analyse available evidence on the effectiveness of adjunct therapy for the treatment of AP in permanent teeth, according to a population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time and study design framework formulated a priori by the European Society of Endodontology.

METHODS

Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science) were searched up to October 2021 to identify clinical studies comparing adjunct therapy to no adjunct therapy in adult patients with AP. Animal studies, reviews, studies with less than 10 patients per arm and studies with a follow-up time of less than 1 year, or less than 7 days for postoperative pain, were excluded. The quality of the included studies was appraised by the appropriate tools [Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies]. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (13 RCTs and one retrospective cohort) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. They evaluated different types of adjunct therapy: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT; three studies), diode laser canal irradiation (3), Nd:YAG laser canal irradiation (2), Er;Cr:YSGG laser canal irradiation (1), ozone therapy (2) and ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) (4). Radiographical healing was reported in seven studies, but meta-analysis was only possible for UAI (two studies), showing no statistically significant difference in healing after 12 months. Pain after 7 days was reported in seven studies. Meta-analysis on three studies that used aPDT and on two studies using diode laser irradiation showed no significant difference in the prevalence of pain after 7 days between the control and adjunct therapy. According to RoB2 tool, six studies had a high risk of bias, five studies had some concerns, and two studies low risk of bias. The GRADE assessment revealed a very low strength of evidence for diode laser, and low strength of evidence for PDT, ozone and UAI studies.

DISCUSSION

The included studies displayed significant heterogeneity in terms of type of adjunct therapy, technical details per adjunct therapy, outcome reporting and several combinations of these, limiting the potential for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to recommend any adjunctive therapy for the treatment of apical periodontitis.

REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42021261869.

Treatment of pulpal and apical disease: The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3-level clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

The ESE previously published quality guidelines for endodontic treatment in 2006; however, there have been significant changes since not only in clinical endodontics but also in consensus and guideline development processes. In the development of the inaugural S3-level clinical practice guidelines (CPG), a comprehensive systematic and methodologically robust guideline consultation process was followed in order to produce evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients presenting with pulpal and apical disease.

AIM

To develop an S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease, focusing on diagnosis and the implementation of the treatment approaches required to manage patients presenting with pulpitis and apical periodontitis (AP) with the ultimate goal of preventing tooth loss.

METHODS

This S3-level CPG was developed by the ESE, with the assistance of independent methodological guidance provided by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and utilizing the GRADE process. A robust, rigorous and transparent process included the analysis of relevant comparative research in 14 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, prior to evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific evidence and expert-based recommendations in a structured consensus process with leading endodontic experts and a broad base of external stakeholders.

RESULTS

The S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease describes in a series of clinical recommendations the effectiveness of diagnosing pulpitis and AP, prior to investigating the effectiveness of endodontic treatments in managing those diseases. Therapeutic strategies include the effectiveness of deep caries management in cases with, and without, spontaneous pain and pulp exposure, vital versus nonvital teeth, the effectiveness of root canal instrumentation, irrigation, dressing, root canal filling materials and adjunct intracanal procedures in the management of AP. Prior to treatment planning, the critical importance of history and case evaluation, aseptic techniques, appropriate training and re-evaluations during and after treatment is stressed.

CONCLUSION

The first S3-level CPG in endodontics informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers, other stakeholders and patients on the available and most effective treatments to manage patients with pulpitis and AP in order to preserve teeth over a patient's lifetime, according to the best comparative evidence currently available.

Irrigants and irrigation activation systems in Endodontics

Root canal infections are typically polymicrobial and involve strong bacterial interactions. The goal of endodontic treatment is to remove infected content from the root canal system to allow the healing of a pre-existing periapical lesion or to prevent infection of the periradicular tissues. Instrumentation alone is not capable of touching all of the root canal walls. Therefore, the irrigation process is an essential step in the endodontic treatment. However, due to the complex anatomy of the root canal system, this cleaning is very challenging. Although syringe and needle irrigation associated with the use of chemical substances is still the most used method, it does not guarantee optimal cleaning of the root canals. As a result, not only alternative irrigating substances but also numerous activation systems - which are technologies that aim to optimize the action of irrigating substances, both chemically and physically - have been developed. This work aimed to review the characteristics of both classic and current alternatives of irrigating substances and irrigation activation systems.

Global research trends on photodynamic therapy in endodontics: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an adjunctive treatment that aims to inactivate microorganisms through an oxidative reaction produced by irradiating a photosensitizing agent. The quest for improved root canal disinfection has sought supplementary methods when performing chemomechanical procedures. From this perspective, PDT protocols were proposed as an auxiliary approach in endodontics. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate publication metrics and research trends related to this scope.

METHODS

This review is reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Two blinded and independent reviewers systematically searched five electronic databases until December 2021. The acquired bibliometric parameters were analyzed through descriptive statistics and graphical mappings with VOSViewer software.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 342 studies from 84 journals originating from 33 countries. About 85% of the included studies were published over the last decade. Most of the available evidence is laboratory-based (74.5%), and the main clinical outcomes evaluated were microbiological load reduction and postoperative pain. Mayram Pourhajibagher is the researcher with the most publications as the first author (n = 16). Tehran University of Medical Sciences carried out the highest number of studies (n = 29), and Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy is the journal that most published on the theme (n = 111).

CONCLUSIONS

This bibliometric analysis mapped and discussed the scientific progress and publication metrics in PDT in endodontic research. Additionally, future perspectives were highlighted and should focus on discovering new photosensitizer agents, standardizing optimal photoactivation protocols, and conducting more clinical-oriented research.