Parikh Margi, Kishan Karkala Venkappa, Solanki Nidhi P, Parikh Maitry, Savaliya Krushn, Bindu Vinukonda Hima, Devika T Das
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedic, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
Contemp Clin Dent. 2019 Jan-Mar;10(1):135-142. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_335_18.
The aim of this systematic review was to systematically evaluate and summarize the outcomes of studies comparing Endoactivator irrigation and Endovac irrigation techniques for removing calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]) medicament from the root canals.
The research question was developed according to the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome strategy. A computerized literature search was conducted in Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase. A hand search of the reference lists of identified articles was performed to separate relevant articles. Two reviewers critically assessed the studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and processed. Evaluation of the risk of bias of the studies was performed independently by the two reviewers.
After study selection, 61 were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 13 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Since significant heterogeneity was found in the methodologies, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis.
On the basis of available evidence, we determined that Endoactivator irrigation technique showed better performance in removing Ca(OH) intracanal medicaments from middle third and coronal third area of the root canals and Endovac irrigation technique showed better performance from the apical third area of the root canals. Due to the limitations, small sample sizes, and low number of included studies, further research is needed to confirm our results.
本系统评价的目的是系统评估和总结比较Endoactivator冲洗技术和Endovac冲洗技术从根管中去除氢氧化钙（Ca[OH]）药物的研究结果。
根据人群、干预措施、对照和结局策略提出研究问题。在Medline、PubMed、谷歌学术和Embase数据库中进行计算机文献检索。对已识别文章的参考文献列表进行手工检索以筛选出相关文章。两名评价者对符合纳入标准的研究进行严格评估并进行处理。两名评价者独立对研究的偏倚风险进行评估。
经过研究筛选，61项研究被评估其是否符合条件。其中，13项符合纳入标准并被纳入系统评价。由于在方法学上发现显著异质性，因此无法进行荟萃分析。
基于现有证据，我们确定Endoactivator冲洗技术在从根管中三分之一和冠方三分之一区域去除根管内Ca(OH)药物方面表现更佳，而Endovac冲洗技术在从根管根尖三分之一区域去除药物方面表现更佳。由于存在局限性、样本量小以及纳入研究数量少，需要进一步研究以证实我们的结果。
