Department of Endodontics, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University (UNIGRANRIO), Duque de Caxias, RJ, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):109-118. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2268-y. Epub 2017 Nov 3.
This systematic review was performed to answer the following question: do contracted endodontic cavities (CECs) increase resistance to fracture in extracted human teeth compared to traditional endodontic cavities (TECs)?
A literature search without restrictions was carried out in PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases. Articles were selected by two independent reviewers. In addition, a reference and hand search was also fulfilled. All included in vitro studies evaluated the influence of CECs on strength to fracture in extracted human teeth and compared to TECs. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated and they were classified as having a low, moderate or high risk of bias.
A total of 810 articles were obtained in the electronic search. After the application of the eligibility criteria, reference and hand search, and duplicate removal, six studies were included in this systematic review. All included studies evaluated the influence of CECs on strength to fracture in extracted human teeth and compared to TECs. Characteristics investigated in the selected articles included the sample size and tooth type, access cavity design, filling and restoration procedures, load at fracture test characteristics, and results. The studies demonstrated large variability among the fracture resistance values and standard deviations and low power. Three of the reviewed studies presented low risk of bias and the other three showed medium risk of bias.
Overall, this systematic review of in vitro studies showed that there is no evidence that supports the use of CECs over TECs for the increase of fracture resistance in human teeth.
Recently, CECs have gained attention in endodontics due to maximum tooth structure preservation including the pericervical dentin, which could improve the strength to fracture of endodontically treated teeth. However, the influence of access cavity design on fracture resistance remains limited and controversial.
本系统评价旨在回答以下问题:与传统根管腔(TEC)相比,收缩根管腔(CEC)是否会增加人牙的抗折能力?
在 PubMed、Science Direct、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Open Grey 数据库中进行了无限制的文献检索。由两名独立的评审员进行文章选择。此外,还进行了参考文献和手工搜索。所有纳入的体外研究均评估了 CEC 对人牙离体抗折强度的影响,并与 TEC 进行了比较。评估了所选研究的质量,并将其归类为低、中或高偏倚风险。
电子检索共获得 810 篇文章。在应用资格标准、参考文献和手工搜索以及去除重复项后,有 6 项研究纳入本系统评价。所有纳入的研究均评估了 CEC 对人牙离体抗折强度的影响,并与 TEC 进行了比较。所选文章中研究的特征包括样本量和牙型、制备洞形设计、填充和修复程序、断裂试验特征和结果。研究表明,断裂阻力值和标准差的变异性较大,且功率较低。综述的 3 项研究显示低偏倚风险,其余 3 项研究显示中偏倚风险。
总体而言,这项对体外研究的系统评价表明,没有证据支持 CEC 优于 TEC 用于增加人牙的抗折能力。
最近,由于包括牙颈部牙本质在内的最大牙体结构保存,CEC 在牙髓病学中受到关注,这可能提高根管治疗牙的抗折能力。然而,制备洞形设计对抗折强度的影响仍然有限且存在争议。