Vital and Nonvital Pulp Therapy in Primary Dentition: An Umbrella Review

Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality.

METHODS

Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores.

DISCUSSION

Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores.

CONCLUSION

In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

An approach of preserving a mandibular primary second molar by a hemisection procedure: A case report with 36-month follow up

Primary teeth play a crucial role in functional, aesthetic and speech tasks. They are also responsible for maintaining the jaw space for successor permanent teeth. Thus, dentists should understand that extraction might be the easiest decision but not always the correct one, especially, in the case of multiple loss of primary molars. On the other hand, endodontic treatments should be accurately diagnosed - necrotic and irreversibly inflamed teeth - and performed with suitable dental tools and materials. Then it is important to provide a good sealing with a suitable final restoration. This case report discusses an approach for preserving a mandibular primary second molar which had a radiographic lesion in the mesial root and the furcation area with multiple loss of primary molars (before eruption of first permanent molar). This treatment was done by performing a root canal treatment (pulpectomy) just for the distal root and a hemisection procedure by extracting the mesial root, followed by applying SSC crown and space maintainer (band and loop). To conclude, this type of treatment should be temporary until the eruption of the first permanent molar and then changed to be a lingual arch appliance. Moreover, hemisection was a suitable alternative approach to extraction over 36 months of following up.

Clinical Effectiveness of Restorative Materials for the Restoration of Carious Primary Teeth: An Umbrella Review

Since untreated dental caries remain a worldwide burden, this umbrella review aimed to assess the quality of evidence on the clinical effectiveness of different restorative materials for the treatment of carious primary teeth. A literature search in electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find systematic reviews with at least two-arm comparisons between restorative materials and a follow-up period ≥12 months. Reviews retrieved were screened; those eligible were selected, and the degree of overlap was calculated using the 'corrected covered area' (CCA). Data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Fourteen systematic reviews with a moderate overlap (6% CCA) were included. All materials studied performed similarly and were equally efficient for the restoration of carious primary teeth. Amalgam and resin composite had the lowest mean failure rate at 24 months while high-viscosity and metal-reinforced glass ionomer cements had the highest. At 36 months, high-viscosity glass ionomer cements showed the highest failure rate with compomer showing the lowest. Most reviews had an unclear risk of bias. Within the limitations of the review, all materials have acceptable mean failure rates and could be recommended for the restoration of carious primary teeth.