Er: YAG激光激活灌洗后原发性根管治疗的术后疼痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Lasers in Medical Science Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1007/s10103-024-04271-0
Luiza Souza Schmidt, Luise Dos Santos Ferreira, Fernando Antonio Vargas Junior, Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa, Lucas Peixoto de Araújo, Carolina Clasen Vieira
{"title":"Er: YAG激光激活灌洗后原发性根管治疗的术后疼痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Luiza Souza Schmidt, Luise Dos Santos Ferreira, Fernando Antonio Vargas Junior, Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa, Lucas Peixoto de Araújo, Carolina Clasen Vieira","doi":"10.1007/s10103-024-04271-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to compare postoperative pain in endodontic treatments using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation (LAI) versus conventional needle irrigation. An electronic search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) investigating postoperative pain in patients who underwent root canal treatments in permanent teeth using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation or conventional needle irrigation. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0 tool), and the certainty of evidence (GRADE). The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager software (p ≤ 0.05). The mean difference (MD) was chosen as the effect measure, and a random-effect model was employed, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The search identified 2864 records, and after selecting, three RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed a difference in postoperative pain according to the evaluation time. The subgroup meta-analysis revealed that the PIPS Er:YAG showed a significant reduction in the postoperative pain in the 48 hours (MD = -0.78; 95% CI [-1.39, -0.17]; p = 0.01; I² = 69%) compared to the control group. However, no statiscally significant results were found when assessing postoperative pain after 1, 3 and 7 days (95% CI; p > 0.05). The PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation reduced postoperative pain at 2 days following primary endodontic treatment. However, the certainty of the evidence is low and further RCTs are needed to confirm these results and avoid bias and confounding factors. Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023432499.</p>","PeriodicalId":17978,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative pain in primary root canal treatments after Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Luiza Souza Schmidt, Luise Dos Santos Ferreira, Fernando Antonio Vargas Junior, Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa, Lucas Peixoto de Araújo, Carolina Clasen Vieira\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10103-024-04271-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to compare postoperative pain in endodontic treatments using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation (LAI) versus conventional needle irrigation. An electronic search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) investigating postoperative pain in patients who underwent root canal treatments in permanent teeth using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation or conventional needle irrigation. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0 tool), and the certainty of evidence (GRADE). The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager software (p ≤ 0.05). The mean difference (MD) was chosen as the effect measure, and a random-effect model was employed, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The search identified 2864 records, and after selecting, three RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed a difference in postoperative pain according to the evaluation time. The subgroup meta-analysis revealed that the PIPS Er:YAG showed a significant reduction in the postoperative pain in the 48 hours (MD = -0.78; 95% CI [-1.39, -0.17]; p = 0.01; I² = 69%) compared to the control group. However, no statiscally significant results were found when assessing postoperative pain after 1, 3 and 7 days (95% CI; p > 0.05). The PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation reduced postoperative pain at 2 days following primary endodontic treatment. However, the certainty of the evidence is low and further RCTs are needed to confirm these results and avoid bias and confounding factors. Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023432499.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-024-04271-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-024-04271-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述旨在比较使用PIPS Er: YAG激光激活冲洗(LAI)与传统针刺冲洗治疗根管术后疼痛。我们进行了一项电子检索,以确定随机临床试验(RCT),研究使用PIPS Er: YAG激光激活冲洗或传统针头冲洗进行恒牙根管治疗的患者术后疼痛。两名审稿人进行了研究选择、数据提取、偏倚风险评估(RoB 2.0工具)和证据确定性(GRADE)。meta分析采用Review Manager软件进行(p≤0.05)。采用均值差(MD)作为效果度量,采用随机效应模型,并采用95%置信区间(CI)。检索到2864条记录,经筛选,纳入3项rct进行定量分析。meta分析显示,评估时间不同,术后疼痛程度也不同。亚组荟萃分析显示,PIPS Er:YAG在48小时内显著减轻了术后疼痛(MD = -0.78;95% ci [-1.39, -0.17];p = 0.01;I²= 69%)。然而,在评估术后1、3和7天的疼痛时,没有发现有统计学意义的结果(95% CI;p > 0.05)。PIPS Er: YAG激光激活灌洗减少了初级牙髓治疗后2天的术后疼痛。然而,证据的确定性较低,需要进一步的随机对照试验来证实这些结果,避免偏倚和混杂因素。报名:普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42023432499。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Postoperative pain in primary root canal treatments after Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review aimed to compare postoperative pain in endodontic treatments using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation (LAI) versus conventional needle irrigation. An electronic search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) investigating postoperative pain in patients who underwent root canal treatments in permanent teeth using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation or conventional needle irrigation. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0 tool), and the certainty of evidence (GRADE). The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager software (p ≤ 0.05). The mean difference (MD) was chosen as the effect measure, and a random-effect model was employed, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The search identified 2864 records, and after selecting, three RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed a difference in postoperative pain according to the evaluation time. The subgroup meta-analysis revealed that the PIPS Er:YAG showed a significant reduction in the postoperative pain in the 48 hours (MD = -0.78; 95% CI [-1.39, -0.17]; p = 0.01; I² = 69%) compared to the control group. However, no statiscally significant results were found when assessing postoperative pain after 1, 3 and 7 days (95% CI; p > 0.05). The PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation reduced postoperative pain at 2 days following primary endodontic treatment. However, the certainty of the evidence is low and further RCTs are needed to confirm these results and avoid bias and confounding factors. Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023432499.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lasers in Medical Science
Lasers in Medical Science 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Lasers in Medical Science (LIMS) has established itself as the leading international journal in the rapidly expanding field of medical and dental applications of lasers and light. It provides a forum for the publication of papers on the technical, experimental, and clinical aspects of the use of medical lasers, including lasers in surgery, endoscopy, angioplasty, hyperthermia of tumors, and photodynamic therapy. In addition to medical laser applications, LIMS presents high-quality manuscripts on a wide range of dental topics, including aesthetic dentistry, endodontics, orthodontics, and prosthodontics. The journal publishes articles on the medical and dental applications of novel laser technologies, light delivery systems, sensors to monitor laser effects, basic laser-tissue interactions, and the modeling of laser-tissue interactions. Beyond laser applications, LIMS features articles relating to the use of non-laser light-tissue interactions.
期刊最新文献
Cellular homeostasis and oncology safety of low pulse frequency laser for photobiomodulation in oral and dermal cells. Evaluation of the effects of different irrigation activation techniques on the surface roughness of dentin and blood clot in regenerative endodontic models. Photobiomodulation in acute rejection of fetal intestinal grafts: morphological aspects and lymphocyte activation. Optimisation of low-level light therapy (lllt) parameters and evaluation of its immunomodulatory effect on fibroblasts. Research advances in the pathogenesis and photodynamic therapy of pathological scars.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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