Nangia Divya, Saini Aakriti, Sharma Sidhartha, Kumar Vijay, Chawla Amrita, Perumal Vanamail, Logani Ajay
Division of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
J Conserv Dent. 2021 Nov-Dec;24(6):530-538. doi: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_535_21. Epub 2022 Apr 1.
Regenerative endodontic procedures (REP) have the advantage of restoring root canal's native defense ability by re-establishing vital pulp-like tissue. This review aims to determine the overall clinical and/or radiographic success rate (O) of REP (I) in mature permanent teeth (P) and to compare it (C) with nonsurgical endodontic treatment (NSET).
Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trials Registry-India and OpenGrey. Inclusion: Randomized clinical trials and single-arm prospective studies evaluating the treatment outcomes of REP in mature permanent teeth. Exclusion: Incomplete trials/studies, studies, animal studies, case reports/series, conference proceedings. Cochrane ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the risk of bias. Risk difference (R.D.) between NSET and REP was determined by meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials. The overall success rate of REP was calculated using data from both randomized clinical trials and single-arm prospective studies. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed.
Ten studies ( = 552) were included. R.D between REP and NSET was 0.032 (95% C.I: 0.023-0.087; = 0.258). Overall success rate of REP was 96.0% (95% confidence interval: 94%-98%). No significant difference was found in sensitivity analysis ( = 0.551), or any of the subgroup analysis ( > 0.05).
A limited number of randomized clinical trials were available, and only two of them had a low risk of bias. Consistent results were obtained in both types of included studies.
Based on a limited number of comparative studies, REP has a similar success rate to NSET in mature permanent teeth.
Funding: Nil. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020204882).
再生牙髓治疗程序(REP)具有通过重建有活力的牙髓样组织来恢复根管天然防御能力的优势。本综述旨在确定再生牙髓治疗程序(I)在成熟恒牙(P)中的总体临床和/或影像学成功率(O),并将其与非手术牙髓治疗(NSET)(C)进行比较。
资料来源:PubMed、科学网、Embase、EBSCO、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、ClinicalTrials.gov、印度临床试验注册库和OpenGrey。纳入标准:评估再生牙髓治疗程序在成熟恒牙中治疗效果的随机临床试验和单臂前瞻性研究。排除标准:不完整的试验/研究、动物研究、病例报告/系列、会议论文集。采用Cochrane ROB2.0和ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险。通过对随机临床试验的荟萃分析确定非手术牙髓治疗与再生牙髓治疗程序之间的风险差异(R.D.)。使用随机临床试验和单臂前瞻性研究的数据计算再生牙髓治疗程序的总体成功率。进行敏感性分析和亚组分析。
纳入10项研究(n = 552)。再生牙髓治疗程序与非手术牙髓治疗之间的风险差异为0.032(95%置信区间:0.023 - 0.087;P = 0.258)。再生牙髓治疗程序的总体成功率为96.0%(95%置信区间:94% - 98%)。在敏感性分析(P = 0.551)或任何亚组分析(P > 0.05)中均未发现显著差异。
可用的随机临床试验数量有限,其中只有两项偏倚风险较低。在两类纳入研究中均获得了一致的结果。
基于有限数量的比较研究,再生牙髓治疗程序在成熟恒牙中的成功率与非手术牙髓治疗相似。
资金:无。注册:PROSPERO(CRD42020204882)