Development of criteria for investigation of periapical tissue from root-filled teeth

Smoking and Radiolucent Periapical Lesions in Root Filled Teeth: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between smoking habits and the prevalence of radiolucent periapical lesions (RPLs) in root-filled teeth (RFT).

METHODS

The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) question was: in adult patients who have RFT, does the absence or presence of a smoking habit affect the prevalence of RPLs associated with RFT? Systematic MEDLINE/PubMed, Wiley Online Database, Web of Science, Scopus, and PRISMA protocol were used to evaluate and present the results. Studies comparing smokers with control non-smoker subjects, including RFT, and providing data on the prevalence of RFT with RPLs, were included. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used for certainty in the evidence. The risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane Collaboration common scheme for bias and ROBINS-I tool. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model. PROSPERO registration code: CRD42020165279.

RESULTS

Four studies reported data on inclusion criteria, representing data from 9257 root-filled teeth-4465 from non-smokers and 4792 from smoker patients. The meta-analysis provided an odds ratio indicating a significant association between smoking and higher prevalence of root filled teeth with radiolucent periapical lesions (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.07-1.26; p = 0.0004). The certainty of the literature assessment was moderate per GRADE. The ROBINS-I tool classified three studies as low risk of bias, and the fourth as moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate, quality scientific evidence indicates a weak but significant relationship between smoking and the prevalence of RPLs in RFT. Smoking can be considered a negative prognostic factor for the outcome of root canal treatment. Endodontic providers should be aware of the relationship between smoking and persistent apical periodontitis, assessed as RPLs, in RFT.

Cigarette Smoking and Root Filled Teeth Extraction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the possible association between smoking habits and the occurrence of root-filled teeth (RFT) extraction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) question was in adult patients who had RFT, does the absence or presence of smoking habits affect the prevalence of extracted RFT? Systematic MEDLINE/PubMed, Wiley Online Database, Web of Science, and PRISMA protocol was used to evaluate and present the results. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used for certainty in the evidence. The risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane Collaboration common scheme for bias and ROBINS-I tool. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model. PROSPERO registration code: CRD42020165279.

RESULTS

After search strategy, 571 articles were recovered, seven were selected for full-text analysis, and two reported data on inclusion criteria, including 516 RFT, 351 in non-smokers, and 165 in smoker subjects. The meta-analysis provided an odds ratio indicating significant association between smoking and the prevalence of extracted RFT (OR = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.17-10.05, p = 0.02, I² = 64%). The certainty of the literature assessment was low per GRADE. Both studies were considered as moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco smoking should be considered a negative prognostic factor for the outcome of root canal treatment, although the quality of the evidence is low. RFT of smoking patients are three times more likely to be extracted. Continuing to smoke after endodontic treatment may increase the risk of treatment failure. However, the overall strength of evidence is low. This must be considered a limitation of the present study and the conclusion should be valued with caution.