Bürklein S, Arias A. Effectiveness of root canal instrumentation for the treatment of apical periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Int Endod J 2023;
56 Suppl 3:395-421. [PMID:
35670625 DOI:
10.1111/iej.13782]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2022] [Revised: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
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).
Collapse