{"title":"小儿肺切除术中旋转器械与手动器械的比较分析：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Neeta Padmawar, Neha Pawar, Vandana Tripathi, Satyabrat Banerjee, Garima Tyagi, Sourabh R Joshi","doi":"10.1111/aej.12899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of rotary file in permanent teeth is well-documented, but there is limited scientific evidence for its effectiveness in primary teeth. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare rotary and manual tools in primary tooth pulpectomy procedures. Ten databases were searched from 2000 to 2024 to find relevant literature. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool assessed bias in randomised control trials. STATA software version 18 conducted the meta-analysis. A random-effects model was used for instrumentation time and obturation quality evaluation while sensitivity analysis followed high heterogeneity detection. Twenty RCTs were included after screening 723 studies. Publication bias and heterogeneity were found for instrumentation time, leading to removal of nine studies. Significant difference in mean instrumentation time (1.42) was noted. Obturation quality assessment showed an odds ratio of 1.82. Use of rotary instrumentation yielded superior outcomes compared with manual instrumentation for pulpectomy for primary teeth.</p>","PeriodicalId":55581,"journal":{"name":"Australian Endodontic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of rotary versus manual instrumentation in paediatric pulpectomy procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Neeta Padmawar, Neha Pawar, Vandana Tripathi, Satyabrat Banerjee, Garima Tyagi, Sourabh R Joshi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aej.12899\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of rotary file in permanent teeth is well-documented, but there is limited scientific evidence for its effectiveness in primary teeth. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare rotary and manual tools in primary tooth pulpectomy procedures. Ten databases were searched from 2000 to 2024 to find relevant literature. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool assessed bias in randomised control trials. STATA software version 18 conducted the meta-analysis. A random-effects model was used for instrumentation time and obturation quality evaluation while sensitivity analysis followed high heterogeneity detection. Twenty RCTs were included after screening 723 studies. Publication bias and heterogeneity were found for instrumentation time, leading to removal of nine studies. Significant difference in mean instrumentation time (1.42) was noted. Obturation quality assessment showed an odds ratio of 1.82. Use of rotary instrumentation yielded superior outcomes compared with manual instrumentation for pulpectomy for primary teeth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Endodontic Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Endodontic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12899\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Endodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12899","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative analysis of rotary versus manual instrumentation in paediatric pulpectomy procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The use of rotary file in permanent teeth is well-documented, but there is limited scientific evidence for its effectiveness in primary teeth. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare rotary and manual tools in primary tooth pulpectomy procedures. Ten databases were searched from 2000 to 2024 to find relevant literature. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool assessed bias in randomised control trials. STATA software version 18 conducted the meta-analysis. A random-effects model was used for instrumentation time and obturation quality evaluation while sensitivity analysis followed high heterogeneity detection. Twenty RCTs were included after screening 723 studies. Publication bias and heterogeneity were found for instrumentation time, leading to removal of nine studies. Significant difference in mean instrumentation time (1.42) was noted. Obturation quality assessment showed an odds ratio of 1.82. Use of rotary instrumentation yielded superior outcomes compared with manual instrumentation for pulpectomy for primary teeth.
期刊介绍：
The Australian Endodontic Journal provides a forum for communication in the different fields that encompass endodontics for all specialists and dentists with an interest in the morphology, physiology, and pathology of the human tooth, in particular the dental pulp, root and peri-radicular tissues.
The Journal features regular clinical updates, research reports and case reports from authors worldwide, and also publishes meeting abstracts, society news and historical endodontic glimpses.
The Australian Endodontic Journal is a publication for dentists in general and specialist practice devoted solely to endodontics. It aims to promote communication in the different fields that encompass endodontics for those dentists who have a special interest in endodontics.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
