Associate Professor, Department of General Practice, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, Richmond VA, USA.
Evid Based Dent. 2020 Dec;21(4):136-137. doi: 10.1038/s41432-020-0142-2.
Design Systematic review.Data sources PubMed and Scopus databases were searched independently by two authors from inception to July 2018 using keywords and index words combined using Boolean terms. Articles were restricted to English and were not excluded based on study design. Conference proceedings, grey literature, letters and commentaries were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Demographic data (age, sex), study design, pulpal and periapical pre-treatment diagnosis, pre-operative radiographic findings, intra-operative disinfection protocol, intracanal coronal barrier, duration of follow-up, and clinical and/or radiographic and/or histological outcomes after completion of single-visit regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) on non-vital, immature permanent teeth. Quality of included case reports were assessed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials was done using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The quality of the animal study was assessed by the SYRCLE risk of bias assessment tool.Results A total of five case reports, one randomised controlled trial and one animal study were included in the final analysis. All case reports were rated as high quality while the randomised controlled trial was rated moderate-to-low risk of bias. Case reports and the animal study favoured single-visit REPs, while the results from the randomised trial reported only 50% success. Within this limited pool of studies, there were differences in aetiology, location, disinfection protocol (different concentrations of NaOCl and EDTA, saline, chlorhexidine), follow-up time intervals and subjective reporting of radiographic healing, making syntheses challenging.Conclusions Single-visit REPs may offer benefits of reduced treatment time and visits compared to conventional two-visit REPs.
设计 系统评价。数据来源 两位作者独立地从 2018 年 7 月以前通过使用关键词和索引词结合布尔术语在 PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库中进行搜索。文章仅限于英文，且不根据研究设计进行排除。会议记录、灰色文献、信件和评论被排除在外。数据提取和综合 人口统计学数据（年龄、性别）、研究设计、牙髓和根尖周预处理诊断、术前放射学发现、术中消毒方案、根管冠部屏障、非活、未成熟恒牙单次就诊再生性牙髓治疗（REP）完成后的随访时间，以及临床和/或放射学和/或组织学结果。根据 Joanna Briggs 研究所的批判性评估清单评估纳入病例报告的质量。使用 Cochrane 协作工具评估随机对照试验的偏倚风险。使用 SYRCLE 偏倚风险评估工具评估动物研究的质量。结果 共有 5 篇病例报告、1 篇随机对照试验和 1 篇动物研究纳入最终分析。所有病例报告均被评为高质量，而随机对照试验则被评为中低偏倚风险。病例报告和动物研究倾向于单次就诊 REP，而随机试验的结果仅报告 50%的成功率。在这有限的研究中，病因、位置、消毒方案（不同浓度的 NaOCl 和 EDTA、盐水、洗必泰）、随访时间间隔和放射学愈合的主观报告存在差异，使得综合分析具有挑战性。结论 与传统的两次就诊 REP 相比，单次就诊 REP 可能具有减少治疗时间和就诊次数的优势。
