Effectiveness and safety of rotary and reciprocating kinematics for retreatment of curved root canals: a systematic review of in vitro studies.

Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Pub Date : 2022-04-06 eCollection Date: 2022-05-01 DOI:10.5395/rde.2022.47.e22
Lucas Pinho Simões, Alexandre Henrique Dos Reis-Prado, Carlos Roberto Emerenciano Bueno, Ana Cecília Diniz Viana, Marco Antônio Húngaro Duarte, Luciano Tavares Angelo Cintra, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos, Francine Benetti
{"title":"Effectiveness and safety of rotary and reciprocating kinematics for retreatment of curved root canals: a systematic review of <i>in vitro</i> studies.","authors":"Lucas Pinho Simões, Alexandre Henrique Dos Reis-Prado, Carlos Roberto Emerenciano Bueno, Ana Cecília Diniz Viana, Marco Antônio Húngaro Duarte, Luciano Tavares Angelo Cintra, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos, Francine Benetti","doi":"10.5395/rde.2022.47.e22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review (register-osf.io/wg7ba) compared the efficacy and safety of rotary and reciprocating kinematics in the removal of filling material from curved root canals.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Only <i>in vitro</i> studies evaluating both kinematics during retreatment were included. A systematic search (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and other databases, until January 2021), data extraction, and risk of bias analysis (Joanna Briggs Institute checklist) were performed. Efficacy in filling removal was the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search resulted in 2,795 studies, of which 15 were included. Efficacy was measured in terms of the remaining filling material and the time required for this. Nine studies evaluated filling material removal, of which 7 found no significant differences between rotary and reciprocating kinematics. Regarding the time for filling removal, 5 studies showed no difference between both kinematics, 2 studies showed faster results with rotary systems, and other 2 showed the opposite. No significant differences were found in apical transportation, centering ability, instrument failure, dentin removed and extruded debris. A low risk of bias was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review suggests that the choice of rotary or reciprocating kinematics does not influence the efficacy of filling removal from curved root canals. Further studies are needed to compare the kinematics safety in curved root canals.</p>","PeriodicalId":21102,"journal":{"name":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160764/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2022.47.e22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review (register-osf.io/wg7ba) compared the efficacy and safety of rotary and reciprocating kinematics in the removal of filling material from curved root canals.

Materials and methods: Only in vitro studies evaluating both kinematics during retreatment were included. A systematic search (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and other databases, until January 2021), data extraction, and risk of bias analysis (Joanna Briggs Institute checklist) were performed. Efficacy in filling removal was the primary outcome.

Results: The search resulted in 2,795 studies, of which 15 were included. Efficacy was measured in terms of the remaining filling material and the time required for this. Nine studies evaluated filling material removal, of which 7 found no significant differences between rotary and reciprocating kinematics. Regarding the time for filling removal, 5 studies showed no difference between both kinematics, 2 studies showed faster results with rotary systems, and other 2 showed the opposite. No significant differences were found in apical transportation, centering ability, instrument failure, dentin removed and extruded debris. A low risk of bias was observed.

Conclusions: This review suggests that the choice of rotary or reciprocating kinematics does not influence the efficacy of filling removal from curved root canals. Further studies are needed to compare the kinematics safety in curved root canals.

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
旋转和往复运动学对弯曲根管再治疗的有效性和安全性:体外研究的系统回顾
目的:本系统综述(register-osf.io/wg7ba)比较了旋转和往复运动学在弯曲根管中去除充填材料的有效性和安全性。材料和方法仅包括体外研究,评估再治疗期间的两种运动学。系统检索(PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus和其他数据库,截止到2021年1月)、数据提取和偏倚风险分析(Joanna Briggs Institute核对表)进行。清除填充物的效果是主要的结果。结果检索结果为2795项研究,其中15项被纳入。功效是根据剩余填充材料和所需时间来衡量的。9项研究评估了填充材料的去除,其中7项发现旋转和往复运动之间没有显著差异。关于去除填充物的时间,5项研究表明两种运动学没有差异,2项研究表明旋转系统的结果更快,另外2项研究结果相反。在根尖移动、定心能力、器械失效、牙本质脱落和挤压碎片方面,两组间差异无统计学意义。观察到低偏倚风险。结论旋转或往复运动的选择不影响弯曲根管充填物去除的效果。需要进一步的研究来比较弯曲根管的运动学安全性。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A 48-month clinical performance of hybrid ceramic fragment restorations manufactured in CAD/CAM in non-carious cervical lesions: case report. Assessment of mechanical allodynia in healthy teeth adjacent and contralateral to endodontically diseased teeth: a clinical study. A global overview of enamel microabrasion for white spot lesions: a bibliometric review. Effect of surface sealant on the color stability and whiteness index of single-shade resin composites after staining and bleaching. Endodontic characteristics of mandibular premolar with dens evaginatus: a retrospective study.
×
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