二次根管治疗的结果:文献系统评价
Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature.
作者信息
Ng Y-L, Mann V, Gulabivala K
机构信息
Unit of Endodontology, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, University College London, London, UK.
出版信息
Int Endod J. 2008 Dec;41(12):1026-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01484.x.
UNLABELLED
AIMS (I): To investigate the effects of study characteristics on the reported success rates of secondary root canal treatment (2 degrees RCT or root canal retreatment); and (ii) to investigate the effects of clinical factors on the success of 2 degrees RCT.
METHODOLOGY
Longitudinal human clinical studies investigating outcome of 2 degrees RCT which were published upto the end of 2006 were identified electronically (MEDLINE and Cochrane database 1966-2006 Dec, week 4). Four journals (Dental Traumatology, International Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Endodontics Radiology), bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles were hand-searched. Two reviewers (Y-LN, KG) independently assessed and selected the studies based on specified inclusion criteria and extracted the data onto a pre-designed proforma, independently. The criteria were: (i) Clinical studies on 2 degrees RCT; (ii) Stratified analyses available for 2 degrees RCT where 1 degrees RCT data included; (iii) Sample size given and larger than 10; (iv) At least 6-month post-operative review; (v) Success based on clinical and/or radiographic criteria (strict = absence of apical radiolucency; loose = reduction in size of radiolucency); and (vi) Overall success rate given or could be calculated from the raw data. Three strands of evidence or analyses were used to triangulate a consensus view. The reported findings from individual studies, including those excluded for quantitative analysis, were utilized for the intuitive synthesis which constituted the first strand of evidence. Secondly, the pooled weighted success rates by each study characteristic and potential prognostic factor were estimated using the random effect model. Thirdly, the effects of study characteristics and prognostic factors (expressed as odds ratios) on success rates were estimated using fixed and random effects meta-analysis with DerSimonean and Laird's methods. Meta-regression models were used to explore potential sources of statistical heterogeneity. Study characteristics considered in the meta-regression analyses were: decade of publication, study-specific criteria for success (radiographic, combined radiographic & clinical), unit of outcome measure (tooth, root), duration after treatment when assessing success ('at least 4 years' or '<4 years'), geographic location of the study (North American, Scandinavian, other countries), and qualification of the operator (undergraduate students, postgraduate students, general dental practitioners, specialist or mixed group).
RESULTS
Of the 40 papers identified, 17 studies published between 1961 and 2005 were included; none were published in 2006. The majority of studies were retrospective (n = 12) and only five prospective. The pooled weighted success rate of 2 degrees RCT judged by complete healing was 76.7% (95% CI 73.6%, 89.6%) and by incomplete healing, 77.2% (95% CI 61.1%, 88.1%). The success rates by 'decade of publication' and 'geographic location of study' were not significantly different at the 5% level. Eighteen clinical factors had been investigated in various combinations in previous studies. The most frequently and thoroughly investigated were 'periapical status' (n = 13), 'size of lesion' (n = 7), and 'apical extent of RF' (n = 5) which were found to be significant prognostic factors. The effect of different aspects of primary treatment history and re-treatment procedures has been poorly tested.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled estimated success rate of secondary root canal treatment was 77%. The presence of pre-operative periapical lesion, apical extent of root filling and quality of coronal restoration proved significant prognostic factors with concurrence between all three strands of evidence whilst the effects of 1 degrees RCT history and 2 degrees RCT protocol have been poorly investigated.
未标注
目的(一):研究研究特征对二次根管治疗(2度RCT或根管再治疗)报告成功率的影响;(二):研究临床因素对2度RCT成功的影响。
方法
通过电子检索(MEDLINE和Cochrane数据库,1966年至2006年12月底,第4周)确定截至2006年底发表的关于2度RCT结果的纵向人体临床研究。对手工检索了四种期刊(《牙外伤学》《国际牙髓病学杂志》《牙髓病学杂志》《口腔外科、口腔医学、口腔病理学、牙髓病学与放射学》)以及所有相关论文和综述文章的参考文献。两名评审员(Y-LN、KG)根据指定的纳入标准独立评估并选择研究,并独立将数据提取到预先设计的表格上。标准为:(一)关于2度RCT的临床研究;(二)有1度RCT数据时可用于2度RCT的分层分析;(三)给出样本量且大于10;(四)术后至少6个月的复查;(五)基于临床和/或影像学标准的成功(严格标准 = 无根尖透影区;宽松标准 = 透影区大小减小);(六)给出总体成功率或可从原始数据计算得出。使用三条证据或分析线索来形成共识观点。将各个研究报告的结果,包括那些因定量分析而被排除的结果,用于直观综合,这构成了第一条证据线索。其次,使用随机效应模型估计每个研究特征和潜在预后因素的合并加权成功率。第三,使用DerSimonean和Laird方法的固定和随机效应荟萃分析估计研究特征和预后因素(以比值比表示)对成功率的影响。使用荟萃回归模型探索统计异质性的潜在来源。荟萃回归分析中考虑的研究特征包括:发表年代、研究特定的成功标准(影像学、影像学与临床相结合)、结果测量单位(牙齿、牙根)、评估成功时的治疗后持续时间(“至少4年”或“<4年”)、研究的地理位置(北美、斯堪的纳维亚、其他国家)以及操作者资质(本科生、研究生、普通牙科医生、专科医生或混合组)。
结果
在确定的40篇论文中,纳入了1961年至2005年发表的17项研究;2006年无相关研究发表。大多数研究是回顾性的(n = 12),只有5项是前瞻性的。以完全愈合判断的2度RCT合并加权成功率为76.7%(95%置信区间73.6%,89.6%),以不完全愈合判断为77.2%(95%置信区间61.1%,88.1%)。“发表年代”和“研究地理位置”的成功率在5%水平上无显著差异。先前研究以各种组合方式调查了18个临床因素。研究最频繁且全面的是“根尖周状况”(n = 13)、“病变大小”(n = 7)和“根管充填的根尖范围”(n = 5),这些被发现是显著的预后因素。对初次治疗史和再治疗程序不同方面的影响测试不足。
结论
二次根管治疗的合并估计成功率为77%。术前根尖周病变的存在、根管充填的根尖范围和冠部修复质量被证明是显著的预后因素,三条证据线索之间存在一致性,而1度RCT病史和2度RCT方案的影响研究不足。