The impact of two root canal treatment protocols on the oral health-related quality of life: a randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial

Clinician/Patient-Reported Outcomes and Their Association After Root Canal Treatment

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between clinician-reported outcome measures (CROM) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) after root canal treatment is poorly understood. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL) is a crucial PROM. Determination of the minimal important difference (MID) is critical for determining patients' perspective of treatment effectiveness, but the MID required to perceive any meaningful change in the OHRQOL after root canal treatment remains unclear. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the relationship between the clinical outcome and OHRQOL after root canal treatment and to determine the corresponding MID values.

METHODS

Patients (N = 64) requiring primary nonsurgical root canal treatment were recruited. Clinical and radiographic (cone-beam computed tomography) assessment of treatment outcomes was performed at the 12-month follow-up. OHRQOL and pain were evaluated preoperatively and at the 12-month follow-up using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 and visual analog scale, respectively. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. MID was assessed using distribution- and anchor-based approaches.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 47 patients. The clinical outcome was favorable for 92.6% of teeth. OHRQOL and pain showed significant improvement after treatment (P < .001). No significant association was found between clinical outcome and OHRQOL (P > .05). The mean Oral Health Impact Profile-14 score change (ie, 13.6) was greater than the range of MID values determined.

CONCLUSIONS

Root canal treatment significantly improves OHRQOL. Improvement in the OHRQOL score was greater than the MID values determined, implying a clinically significant change. However, PROM (OHRQOL) does not appear to be correlated with CROM.

Fifteen years of engine-driven nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments, what do we know so far? An umbrella review

Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) have produced conflicting findings on engine-driven nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments (reciprocating instruments) since Yared's seminal study 15 years ago. This umbrella review analysed SRs examining the clinical and laboratory evidence regarding reciprocating instruments for root canal treatment. SRs that evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively the outcomes postoperative pain, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), shaping ability, debris extrusion, microbial load, endotoxins reduction, cyclic fatigue, file fracture, dentinal cracks and root canal filling removal were included. The AMSTAR 2 tool was used to evaluate SRs quality, while the ROBIS tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). Forty SRs were included. The SRs revealed predominantly 'high' RoB and 'critically low' quality. Most focused on technical outcomes, exhibiting significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity. Findings suggest comparable efficacy between reciprocating and rotary instruments. However, due to the scarcity of high-quality evidence, future well-designed studies and reviews considering core outcome measures are needed.

Efficacy of electronic apex locators in comparison with intraoral radiographs in working length determination- a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Successful endodontic treatment needs accurate determination of working length (WL). Electronic apex locators (EALs) were presented as an alternative to radiographic methods; and since then, they have evolved and gained popularity in the determination of WL. However, there is insufficient evidence on the post-operative pain, adequacy, and accuracy of EALs in determining WL.

OBJECTIVE

The systematic review and meta-analysis aims to gather evidence regarding the effectiveness of EALs for WL determination when compared to different imaging techniques along with postoperative pain associated with WL determination, the number of radiographs taken during the procedure, the time taken, and the adverse effects.

METHODS

For the review, clinical studies with cross-over and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in seven electronic databases, followed by cross-referencing of the selected studies and related research synthesis. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was carried out with Cochrane's RoB tool and a random-effects model was used. The meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan software 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible RCTs were incorporated into the review and eight RCTs into the meta-analysis, of which five had high RoB and the remaining six had unclear RoB. Following meta-analysis, no significant difference in postoperative pain was found among the EAL and radiograph groups (SMD 0.00, CI .29 to .28, 354 participants; P value = 0.98). Radiograph group showed better WL accuracy (SMD 0.55, CI .11 to .99, 254 participants; P value = 0.02), while the EAL group had 10% better WL adequacy (RR 1.10, CI 1.03-1.18, 573 participants; P value = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

We found very low-certainty evidence to support the efficacy of different types of EAL compared to radiography for the outcomes tested. We were unable to reach any conclusions about the superiority of any type of EAL. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardizing the outcomes and outcome measurement methods.

Impact of pulpectomy versus tooth extraction in children's oral health-related quality of life: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the impact of two management options for primary molars with pulp necrosis (pulpectomy or extraction) on children's oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

DESIGN

A total of 100 children aged 3-5 years with at least one necrotic primary molar were selected and randomized into the study groups. The Brazilian version of early childhood oral health impact scale (B-ECOHIS) was completed by the parent proxy reports at baseline and after 4, 8 and 12 months. Differences between the trial groups were assessed through bootstrap linear regression for B-ECOHIS scores, logistic regression for dental pain self-reports and anxiety scores (α = 5%).

RESULTS

The mean (SD) B-ECOHIS scores at baseline and after 12 months were 17.7 (6.5) and 3.0 (4.0) in the pulpectomy group and 18.8 (7.7) and 7.9 (7.7) in the extraction group. Both treatments significantly improved OHRQoL, but tooth extraction group showed higher scores in total B-ECOHIS (p < .001) and most domains, indicating lower OHRQoL. Furthermore, higher anxiety levels were reported for dental extraction compared to pulpectomy (OR = 2.52; p = .008).

CONCLUSION

Pulpectomy resulted in an improved OHRQoL scores after 12 months when compared to tooth extraction and should be considered as the treatment of choice for necrotic primary molars.

Effectiveness of root canal filling materials and techniques for treatment of apical periodontitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Apical periodontitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the apical periodontium as sequelae of pulp death. It is managed by disinfection and filling of the root canal space.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether obturation techniques and materials used for root canal filling led to the management of AP.

METHODS

A systematic review protocol was written following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist and registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021260275) including two populations, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and time (PICOT) for the research questions querying the effectiveness of obturation techniques (PICOT 1) and materials (PICOT 2) for the management of AP. Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Embase search engines. Searches on International Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics, Clinical Oral Investigations, Journal of Dental Research and Journal of Dentistry websites were also conducted, until May 2021. Both primary (tooth survival) and secondary outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane RoB2 for the randomized and ROBINS-I for the nonrandomized trials.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1652 studies, with 1600 excluded on the title and abstract screening, leaving 52 studies for full-text screening. In total, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. The obturation technique and materials used did not affect the outcome of AP. Vertical compaction resulted in faster resolution of periapical lesions. The oral health-related quality of life of patients treated with lateral condensation exhibited poorer outcomes compared with single matched cone after 6 months of recall.

DISCUSSION

The inclusion and exclusion criteria used for this systematic review enabled the capture of all the literature available on the effect of obturation techniques and materials on the outcome of AP. The data were heterogenous, and a number of articles investigating obturation techniques had no information on the materials and techniques used as they looked at the quality of fill.

CONCLUSIONS

Included studies did not find any difference between different procedures (PICOT 1) and materials (PICOT 2). The risk of bias was high, thus the findings should be interpreted with caution.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021260275.

Effectiveness of root canal instrumentation for the treatment of apical periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The development of endodontic instruments has rapidly advanced, but their impact on endodontic outcome parameters remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICOT questions: In patients with apical periodontitis (P) what is the effectiveness of root canal instrumentation ([Q1] performed with contemporary techniques [I] in comparison with 'traditional' techniques [C]] and ([Q2] performed with contemporary engine-driven NiTi instruments [I] compared with other types of contemporary engine-driven NiTi instruments [with different design and/or technology] [C]) in terms of clinical and patient-related outcomes (O)?

METHODS

After PROSPERO protocol registration, a literature search was conducted using Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Grey literature and major journal contents were examined. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and appraisal of included studies. A quantitative meta-analysis was considered, and statistical heterogeneity and overall quality of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

Nine studies were identified showing substantial methodological differences. Five studies addressed PICOT 1 and three PICOT 2, whereas one study aimed both. A random-effects meta-analysis model was considered for the outcome 'radiographic evidence of normal periodontal ligament space or reduction of apical lesion size' (PICOT 1) based on three studies with 332 evaluable participants and showed that contemporary instrumentation was associated with a more favourable outcome (p = .005) compared with root canal preparation with stainless steel instruments (odds ratio = 2.07 [95%-confidence interval = 1.25-3.44]) with no evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I2  = 0%) but low quality of evidence.

DISCUSSION

Albeit a few studies fulfilled eligible criteria, no study had a low risk of bias. Compelling evidence indicating significantly different outcome rates using different endodontic instruments when treating teeth with apical periodontitis is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of healing, the results of the meta-analysis determined the higher effectiveness of root canal instrumentation performed with contemporary techniques in comparison with conventional stainless steel instruments in patients with apical periodontitis followed for a minimum of 1 year with low quality of evidence. No differences could be demonstrated between preparations with traditional stainless steel and contemporary NiTi instruments for other clinical and patient-related outcomes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021274642).

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.

Cost-effectiveness of root canal treatment compared with tooth extraction in a Swedish Public Dental Service: A prospective controlled cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of root canal treatment (RCT) compared with a tooth extraction in a general dental practice setting, with reference to cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 1 year.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a prospective controlled cohort study based on patients either starting RCT or undergoing extraction at one of six Public Dental Service clinics in the county of Västra Götaland, Sweden. From a total of 65 patients, 2 comparable groups were formed: 37 started RCT and 28 underwent extraction. A societal perspective was used for the cost calculations. QALYs were estimated, based on the EQ-5D-5L given to the patients at their first treatment appointment and then after 1, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

The total mean cost of RCT ($689.1) was higher than for extraction ($280.1). For those patients whose extracted tooth was replaced, the costs were even higher ($1245.5). There were no significant intergroup differences in QALYs, but a significant improvement in health state values in the tooth-preserving group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term, extraction was cost-effective compared with preserving a tooth with RCT. However, the potential need for future replacement of the extracted tooth, by an implant, fixed prosthesis, or removable partial dentures, may change the calculation in favor of RCT.

Patient-related outcomes and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in endodontics

There is increased interest in outcome measures that complement the classic goal of endodontics, being the prevention and healing of apical periodontitis. Possible outcome measures can be subdivided into patient-centred outcomes (PCOs), encompassing data collected by nonpatients aiming to assess the effectiveness of an intervention and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which are reported directly by the patient. PROs can be subsequently classed into PRO measures that ascertain patients' view of their symptoms, their functional status, and their health-related quality of life, and patient-reported experience measures that focus on aspects including the humanity of care, patient satisfaction, patient preference and adherence, personal costs, expectation fulfilment, and decision regrets. The present review aims to define various patient-related outcomes and discuss the literature available regarding PCOs and PROs in endodontics. This includes those proposed to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology S3-level clinical practice guidelines that have been included by all working groups, except for the radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Based on limited evidence in the field, it can be summarized that after recall periods of various lengths, endodontic treatment is associated with a high likelihood of tooth survival and limited need for further intervention, including extraction and further restorative procedures. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is likely to improve following the completion of treatment. Nonetheless, the literature assessing the association between OHRQoL and endodontics is hampered by the use of instruments that have not been previously validated. Amongst the remaining outcome measures discussed in the present review, it is worth highlighting that there is only one study assessing exacerbations in teeth with the presence of endodontic pathosis, which suggests a very low incidence of this adverse effect following endodontic treatment. Patients' expectation fulfilment, adherence, and satisfaction are closely inter-related and depend also on various nonclinical factors. Further studies assessing PCOs and PROs, in association with healing and prevention of apical periodontitis, are required to better understand endodontic treatment from the perspective of patients.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ENDODONTICS - A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Recently in oral health care settings, the focus of assessing treatment outcomes has shifted from the perspective of the clinician towards that of the patient. Endodontology is a specialty of dentistry concerned with the prevention and treatment of pulp and periapical diseases. Research in endodontology and its associated treatment outcomes have focused mainly on clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and not dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). As a result, there is a need to emphasize the importance and relevance of dPROs to researchers and clinicians. The aim of this review is to present an overview of dPROs and dPROMs within endodontics in an attempt to create a better understanding of the patient experience, highlight the need to place the patient at the center of treatment, enhance patient care and encourage more research into dPROs. The key dPROs following endodontic treatment include pain, tenderness, tooth function, need for further intervention, adverse effects (exacerbation of symptoms, tooth discoloration) and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. dPROs are important following endodontic treatment because they assist clinicians and patients when they discuss and select the most appropriate management options, help clinicians make decisions on pre-operative assessment, prevention and treatment, and improve the methodology and design of future clinical studies. Clinicians and researchers in endodontology should prioritize patient welfare and undertake routine analyses of dPROs using appropriate and robust measures. Due to the lack of agreement over the reporting and definition of endodontic treatment outcomes, a comprehensive project to define a ``Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment Methods (COSET)'' is currently ongoing. In the future, a new and exclusive assessment tool should be developed to reflect the viewpoints of patients receiving endodontic treatment more accurately.

PROMs Following Root Canal Treatment and Surgical Endodontic Treatment

The FDI is currently working on developing a tool to encompass patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) within the overall assessment of outcomes of endodontic treatment. The outcome of endodontic treatment has traditionally been determined by various clinical and radiographic criteria. However, these parameters do not address the impact of treatment on a patient's oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). OHRQoL, a crucial PROM, can be used to understand treatment outcome from a patient-centred perspective, thus improving clinician-patient communication whilst guiding decision-making. This focussed review aims to recount the OHRQoL of patients following nonsurgical root canal treatment and surgical endodontic treatment, with a specific focus on the minimal important difference (MID; the minimum score changes of an outcome instrument for a patient to register a clinically significant change in their OHRQoL and/or oral condition) and the methods used to determine it. The current evidence indicates that the OHRQoL of patients requiring root canal treatment is poorer than those without such need. Accordingly, the literature suggests that OHRQoL improves following nonsurgical or surgical endodontic treatment. However, study methodologies vary widely, and conclusions cannot be drawn with high confidence, nor can MID recommendations be provided. Well-designed clinical studies with baseline measurements and appropriate follow-up time frames are therefore needed. Despite that the literature is rife with outcome studies, research on PROMs is an area that deserves greater attention, particularly in relation to the MID. Determining the MID will facilitate the understanding of changes in outcome scores from the patients' perspective, thus allowing for more informed decision-making in clinical practice.

Present Status and Future Directions - Canal Shaping

This narrative review will focus on the evolution, present and future of engine‐driven root canal preparation. Root canal preparation changed drastically when Walia in 1988 introduced the use of nickel‐titanium (NiTi) alloys in Endodontics. In 2013, five generations of NiTi endodontic instruments had been established based on their metallurgical, mechanical properties and design features. Since then, manufacturers have been introducing further major changes in instrument design and characteristics that have not been translated in new recognized generations of instruments. In general, those changes have demonstrated enhanced instrument properties, but it is not clear yet if all those improvements are directly translated to an improvement in clinical success. This narrative review attempts to address the present status of engine‐driven instruments in terms of both evidence from laboratory‐based studies and clinical data, to identify potential further generations of instruments, and last to anticipate future directions for research and development.