The effectiveness of the supplementary use of the XP-endo Finisher on bacteria content reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact XP-endo finisher on the 1-year follow-up success of posterior root canal treatments: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical relevance of using the XP-endo Finisher as a supplementary tool to improve the success of root canal treatment of posterior teeth with apical periodontitis, as assessed by 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 92 posterior teeth with apical periodontitis. Root canal treatment was performed using a single reciprocating file, with or without the supplementary use of the XP-endo Finisher. The status of apical periodontitis was assessed using the periapical index (PAI) at baseline and 1 year follow-up. Changes on PAI indicated that the lesions were healed, healing, or not healed. Successful treatments were defined as healed or healing lesions without clinical symptoms. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used for data analysis (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the distribution of healing status between the XP-endo Finisher group and the control group (p = 0.690). The success rates were also similar, with 81% in the XP-endo Finisher group and 78% in the control group. However, gender had a significant impact on success rates, with higher rates observed in females.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the XP-endo Finisher file as a supplementary tool did not affect the success rate of root canal treatment in posterior teeth with apical periodontitis. The findings indicate that the XP-endo Finisher file has limited clinical relevance in improving treatment outcomes for root canal treatment in posterior teeth with apical periodontitis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry under identification number RBR-76w7cj (June 19, 2018).

Methodological quality assessment criteria for the evaluation of laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within the specialty of Endodontology: a development protocol

High quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well-structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be used objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately-defined, unreliably-applied, inadequately-analysed, unreasonably-biased, defective, and non-repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies that should be included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three-stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n=40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine-point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face-to-face meeting by a group of experts (n=10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face-to-face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end-users.