Root canal re-treatment with gutta percha - which techniques influence success?

Q3 Dentistry Evidence-based dentistry Pub Date : 2024-05-25 DOI:10.1038/s41432-024-01019-1
Alexander Hall, Emilie Baerts, David Edwards
{"title":"Root canal re-treatment with gutta percha - which techniques influence success?","authors":"Alexander Hall, Emilie Baerts, David Edwards","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01019-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out assessing the success rate of root canal retreatment using gutta percha. Four of the largest databases were used to identify existing literature with no date or language restrictions. PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Scopus and other additional sources were searched. Grey literature was also reviewed. Two authors, with Master’s degrees in endodontics and with extensive university teaching experience, were selected to screen the databases to identify suitable studies. In case the authors were not able to agree during the study selection process, a third investigator was consulted. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were outlined and adhered to in the study selection. Two randomised controlled trials, seven single arm prospective studies and one single arm ambispective study published before the 10th of December 2022 were included. These studies evaluated the success of root canal re-treatment, obturated with gutta percha with at least a 1-year follow-up. Nine of the studies were published between 1998 and 2022. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, one in North America and one in Asia. Standard Cochrane methods to assess interval validity were used. Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) for single-arm studies, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2) was used for randomised controlled trials. Outcome measures were standardised as either success or failure of root canal retreatment. Success was classified into 2 different criteria: Strict criteria = absence of clinical signs and symptoms and radiographically normal periodontal ligament space; and Loose criteria = absence of clinical signs and symptoms and absence or reduction of apical radiolucency in the control radiograph. Statistical analysis was undertaken using R software and the Freeman-Turkey transformation was performed. Results were visualised using forest plots. Heterogeneity between studies was measured using the Cochrane Q test and I2 values. Whilst following strict criteria, the success rate of non-surgical root canal retreatment obturated with gutta percha was 71% for 1–3 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.66–0.77) and 77% for 4–5 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.67–0.86). Heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 61.4) and low (I2 = 0.0), respectively. Factors reducing the success rate of root canal re-retreatment under the strict criteria were older patients, mandibular teeth, molar teeth, the presence of a peri-apical radiolucency, teeth with a previous radiolucency, large peri-apical radiolucency’s, higher initial periapical index scores and multiple visit-retreatments. Following the loose criteria, the success rate of non-surgical root canal re-treatment obturated with gutta percha was 87% for 1–3 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.79–0.93) with significant heterogeneity across the studies (I2 = 88.5%). Factors influencing the success rate under the loose criteria were large periapical lesions >5 mm and higher initial periapical index (PAI) scores. Non-surgical root canal retreatment results in favourable outcomes. However, there are several factors which can result in a lower success rate: the presence and size of a periapical radiolucency, a higher initial PAI score, multiple-visit retreatments, and the size and position of the tooth.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 2","pages":"104-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01019-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01019-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out assessing the success rate of root canal retreatment using gutta percha. Four of the largest databases were used to identify existing literature with no date or language restrictions. PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Scopus and other additional sources were searched. Grey literature was also reviewed. Two authors, with Master’s degrees in endodontics and with extensive university teaching experience, were selected to screen the databases to identify suitable studies. In case the authors were not able to agree during the study selection process, a third investigator was consulted. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were outlined and adhered to in the study selection. Two randomised controlled trials, seven single arm prospective studies and one single arm ambispective study published before the 10th of December 2022 were included. These studies evaluated the success of root canal re-treatment, obturated with gutta percha with at least a 1-year follow-up. Nine of the studies were published between 1998 and 2022. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, one in North America and one in Asia. Standard Cochrane methods to assess interval validity were used. Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) for single-arm studies, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2) was used for randomised controlled trials. Outcome measures were standardised as either success or failure of root canal retreatment. Success was classified into 2 different criteria: Strict criteria = absence of clinical signs and symptoms and radiographically normal periodontal ligament space; and Loose criteria = absence of clinical signs and symptoms and absence or reduction of apical radiolucency in the control radiograph. Statistical analysis was undertaken using R software and the Freeman-Turkey transformation was performed. Results were visualised using forest plots. Heterogeneity between studies was measured using the Cochrane Q test and I2 values. Whilst following strict criteria, the success rate of non-surgical root canal retreatment obturated with gutta percha was 71% for 1–3 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.66–0.77) and 77% for 4–5 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.67–0.86). Heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 61.4) and low (I2 = 0.0), respectively. Factors reducing the success rate of root canal re-retreatment under the strict criteria were older patients, mandibular teeth, molar teeth, the presence of a peri-apical radiolucency, teeth with a previous radiolucency, large peri-apical radiolucency’s, higher initial periapical index scores and multiple visit-retreatments. Following the loose criteria, the success rate of non-surgical root canal re-treatment obturated with gutta percha was 87% for 1–3 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.79–0.93) with significant heterogeneity across the studies (I2 = 88.5%). Factors influencing the success rate under the loose criteria were large periapical lesions >5 mm and higher initial periapical index (PAI) scores. Non-surgical root canal retreatment results in favourable outcomes. However, there are several factors which can result in a lower success rate: the presence and size of a periapical radiolucency, a higher initial PAI score, multiple-visit retreatments, and the size and position of the tooth.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用胶凝剂进行根管再治疗--哪些技术会影响成功率?
目标对文献进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,评估使用古塔胶进行根管再治疗的成功率。数据来源使用四个最大的数据库查找现有文献,没有日期或语言限制。搜索了 PubMed、Cochrane、ScienceDirect、Scopus 和其他其他来源的文献。研究选取两名拥有牙髓病学硕士学位和丰富大学教学经验的作者对数据库进行筛选,以确定合适的研究。如果两位作者在研究选择过程中无法达成一致,则咨询第三位研究者。在研究筛选过程中,我们列出并遵守了具体的纳入和排除标准。其中包括在 2022 年 12 月 10 日之前发表的两项随机对照试验、七项单臂前瞻性研究和一项单臂前瞻性研究。这些研究对根管再治疗的成功率进行了评估,并使用古塔胶进行了至少 1 年的随访。其中九项研究发表于 1998 年至 2022 年之间。7 项研究在欧洲进行,1 项在北美进行,1 项在亚洲进行。单项研究的偏倚风险采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表(NOS)进行评估,随机对照试验采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具(RoB2)进行评估。结果测量标准化为根管再治疗的成功或失败。成功分为两种不同的标准:严格标准 = 无临床症状和体征,且X光片显示牙周韧带间隙正常;宽松标准 = 无临床症状和体征,且对照X光片显示根尖无放射或放射减少。使用 R 软件进行统计分析,并进行 Freeman-Turkey 转换。结果采用森林图直观显示。结果虽然遵循了严格的标准,但在 1-3 年的随访中,使用古塔胶进行非手术根管再治疗的成功率为 71%(95% CI,0.66-0.77),在 4-5 年的随访中,成功率为 77%(95% CI,0.67-0.86)。异质性分别为中度(I2 = 61.4)和低度(I2 = 0.0)。在严格标准下,降低根管再治疗成功率的因素包括:患者年龄较大、下颌牙、磨牙、根尖周围有放射线、曾有放射线、根尖周围放射线较大、初始根尖周围指数评分较高以及多次就诊再治疗。按照宽松的标准,在 1-3 年的随访中,使用古塔胶进行非手术根管再治疗的成功率为 87%(95% CI,0.79-0.93),但各研究之间存在显著的异质性(I2 = 88.5%)。在宽松标准下,影响成功率的因素是根尖周病变大 >5 mm 和初始根尖周指数(PAI)评分较高。结论非手术根管再治疗的效果很好,但有几个因素会导致成功率降低:根尖周有放射线、初始 PAI 分数较高、多次就诊、牙齿的大小和位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of school-based oral health education interventions on oral health status and oral hygiene behaviors among schoolchildren: an umbrella review. Does adopting a healthy diet improve periodontal parameters in patients susceptible to periodontal disease? A systematic review. Effectiveness of 'video-based interventions' of toothbrushing over other interventions on improvement of oral hygiene in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD): a systematic review and meta-analysis. How can we remove erroneous penicillin allergy labels? Auxillary aids for pain and anxiety reduction during dental local anesthesia in pediatric patients: a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1