Endodontics: A Multiple-visit Or Single-visit Approach

Strength of recommendation for single-visit root canal treatment: grading the body of the evidence using a patient-centred approach

AIM

To identify, search for and critically interpret the results from clinical studies on single- versus multiple-visit root canal treatment in the light of an evidence-based paradigm. For that purpose, the quality of the available body of evidence was assessed using the SORT 'grade' - Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy.

METHODOLOGY

A protocol was followed including all aspects of the review methods: (i) search strategy, (ii) inclusion criteria for studies, (iii) screening methods, (iv) quality assessment, (v) data synthesis of the selected studies, and (vi) the assessment of quality of the body of evidence available by the means of the SORT 'grade'. An extensive search of recent biomedical literature was performed in PubMed (up to May, 2014), EMBASE (dating from 1980 to May 2014) and Cochrane databases with appropriate headings and keywords related to single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment. Selected studies were stratified according to their level of evidence using the SORT criteria: (i) quality - Level A high-quality evidence, Level B medium/low-quality evidence and Level C no evidence; (ii) degree of consistency - consistent, when most studies found a similar conclusion, or inconsistent, when there was considerable variation amongst study findings.

RESULTS

After the digital and manual searches, 246 studies were indentified. Two hundred and seven studies were eliminated by exclusion criteria, resulting in a yield of 39 articles that were selected for retrieval. Of the 39 articles, only 11 could be classified as Level 2 (B); the other 28 articles did not obey the criteria to be considered as real patient-oriented evidence; thus, they were classified as Level 3 (C). No studies were ranked as Level 1 because they did not obey the minimum standard to be considered as both good-quality research and patient-oriented evidence. Despite this, all of the selected Level B studies reported no significant differences between single- and multiple-visit treatments.

CONCLUSION

There is B-level (mid-level) evidence to confirm there is no difference between the two different treatments, based on research addressing clinical outcomes and using some consistent but limited-quality methods of scientific investigation. More studies focused on evaluating patient-centred outcomes are urgently required.

A systematic review of nonsurgical single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment

Conventional endodontic treatment used to require multiple visits, but some clinicians have suggested that single-visit treatment is superior. Single-visit endodontic treatment and multiple-visit endodontic treatment both have their advantages and disadvantages. This paper is a literature review of the research on nonsurgical single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment. The PubMed database was searched using the keywords (endodontic treatment OR endodontic therapy OR root canal treatment OR root canal therapy) AND (single-visit OR one-visit OR 1-visit). Review papers, case reports, data studies, and irrelevant reports were excluded, and 47 papers on clinical trials were reviewed. The studies generally had small sample sizes, and the endodontic procedures varied among the studies. Meta-analysis on the selected studies was performed, and the results showed that the postoperative complications of the single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatment were similar. Furthermore, neither single-visit endodontic treatment nor multiple-visit treatment had superior results over the other in terms of healing or success rate. Results of limited studies on disinfection of the root canals using low-energy laser photodynamic therapy is inconclusive, and further studies are necessary to show whether laser should be used in endodontic treatment. This review also found that that neither single-visit endodontic treatment nor multiple-visit treatment could guarantee the absence of postoperative pain. Since the study design of many studies displayed significant limitation and the materials and equipment used in endodontic treatment have dramatically changed in recent years, prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to further verify the postoperative pain and success rates of single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment.

Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth

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 and clinical signs in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement. The success of RoCT depends on a series of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of single- and multiple-visit RoCT, measured as tooth extraction due to endodontic problems and radiological success.To assess the difference in short- and long-term complications between single- and multiple-visit RoCT.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched for relevant trials: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Handsearching was performed for the major oral medicine journals. References of included studies and reviews were checked. Endodontics experts were contacted through e-mail. No language limitations were imposed. Date of last search was 6th March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients needing RoCT were included. Surgical endodontic treatment was excluded. The outcomes considered were the number of teeth extracted for endodontic problems; radiological success after at least 1 year, that is, absence of any periapical radiolucency; postoperative pain; painkiller use; swelling; or sinus track formation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected using a specific extraction form. The validity of included studies was assessed on the basis of allocation concealment, blindness of the study, and loss of participants. Data were analysed by calculating risk ratios. When valid and relevant data were collected, a meta-analysis of the data was undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomised controlled trials were included in the review. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four a moderate risk, and another four had a high risk of bias. The frequency of radiological success and immediate postoperative pain were not significantly different between single- and multiple-visit RoCT. Patients undergoing single-visit RoCT reported a higher frequency of painkiller use and swelling, but the results for swelling were not significantly different between the two groups. We found no study that included tooth loss and sinus track formation among its primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No difference exists in the effectiveness of RoCT, in terms of radiological success, between single- and multiple-visit RoCT. Most short- and long-term complications are also similar in terms of frequency, although patients undergoing a single visit may experience a slightly higher frequency of swelling and are significatively more likely to take painkillers.

Effectiveness of single- versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The clinical question this review aimed to answer is: does single-visit root canal treatment without calcium hydroxide dressing, compared to multiple-visit treatment with calcium hydroxide dressing for 1 week or more, result in a lower healing (success) rate (as measured by clinical and radiographic interpretation)?

METHODOLOGY

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and HEALTH STAR databases were used. Reference lists from identified articles were scanned. A forward search was undertaken on the authors of the identified articles. Papers that had cited these articles were also identified through Science Citation Index to identify potentially relevant subsequent primary research.

REVIEW METHODS

The included studies were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing healing rate of single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment in humans. The outcome measured was healing of radiographically detectable lesions. Data in those studies were independently extracted.

RESULTS

Only three RCTs were identified and included in the review, covering 146 cases. Sample size of all three studies was small; none demonstrated a statistically significant difference in healing rates. Risk differences of included studies were combined using the inverse variance-weighted method (RD(Pooled) = -6.3%; 95% CI: -20.3-7.8).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current best available evidence, single-visit root canal treatment appeared to be slightly more effective than multiple visit, i.e. 6.3% higher healing rate. However, the difference in healing rate between these two treatment regimens was not statistically significant (P = 0.3809).