Araújo LPD, Gobbo LB, Silva TAD, Rosa WLDOD, Almeida JFAD, Gomes BPFA, Ferraz CCR. Photodynamic therapy in the root canal treatment of primary teeth: A systematic review of clinical trials.
Int J Paediatr Dent 2024;
34:114-124. [PMID:
37195228 DOI:
10.1111/ipd.13088]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2022] [Revised: 03/04/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Dental caries is the most common oral disease worldwide, and it is estimated to affect 2.3 billion people, with at least 530 million of them being schoolchildren with decayed primary teeth. This condition can rapidly evolve into irreversible pulp inflammation and pulp necrosis and thus requiring endodontic intervention. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a supplementary method to conventional pulpectomy and is used to improve the protocol used for disinfection.
AIM
The main objective of this study was to evaluate through a systematic review the efficacy of supplementary PDT on the pulpectomy of primary teeth. This review was registered a priori on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022310581).
DESIGN
Two independent and blinded reviewers carried out a comprehensive search in five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials that evaluated in vivo microbiological load or clinical outcomes after using supplementary PDT in infected primary teeth.
RESULTS
After the selection process, four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Data regarding the sample characteristics and PDT protocols were retrieved. All included trials used phenothiazinium salts as photosensitizer agents. Only one study observed a significant difference in the in vivo microbiological load reduction outcome when performing PDT on primary teeth. The remaining studies all discussed the possible benefits of this intervention; however, none observed a significant difference in this outcome.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, moderate-to-low certainty of the available evidence was observed, and thus, no significant conclusions can be drawn from the findings.
Collapse