Ahmad Muhammad Zubair, Sadaf Durre, MacBain Marcy McCall, Merdad Khalid A
Restorative Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry in Ar Rass, Qassim University, Ar Rass, Saudi Arabia.
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Aust Endod J. 2022 Apr;48(1):202-218. doi: 10.1111/aej.12612. Epub 2022 Mar 7.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether single-file endodontic instrumentation systems with the reciprocating type of motion are responsible for more debris extrusion than single-file endodontic instrumentation systems with the full rotational type of motion. Electronic and manual searches were performed following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis - PRISMA. We included studies comparing rotary (Neoniti and/ OneShape) versus reciprocating (WaveOne and/ Reciproc) systems. We evaluated the quality of studies and performed statistical analysis using R-Project software. Eight studies of high quality were included to perform the meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was also done. The overall risk of bias was too low. In conclusion, single-file reciprocating systems tend to generate more extrusion of debris than single-file rotary systems.
本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了采用往复运动类型的单根管牙髓治疗器械系统是否比采用全旋转运动类型的单根管牙髓治疗器械系统导致更多的碎屑挤出。按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）的建议进行了电子和手动检索。我们纳入了比较旋转系统（Neoniti和/或OneShape）与往复系统（WaveOne和/或Reciproc）的研究。我们评估了研究质量，并使用R-Project软件进行了统计分析。纳入了八项高质量研究以进行荟萃分析。还进行了亚组分析。总体偏倚风险很低。总之，单根管往复系统往往比单根管旋转系统产生更多的碎屑挤出。
