Tomson Phillip L, Vilela Bastos Juliana, Jacimovic Jelena, Jakovljevic Aleksandar, Pulikkotil Shaju Jacob, Nagendrababu Venkateshbabu
Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Int Endod J. 2023 Oct;56 Suppl 3:355-369. doi: 10.1111/iej.13844. Epub 2022 Oct 29.
Pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain can result in debilitating pain. Dogma has existed to offer only have two treatment options, namely root canal treatment (RCT) or extraction, although pulpotomy has always remained a potential treatment modality.
This review aimed to answer the following research question: 'Does pulpotomy (partial or full) (I) result in better patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), compared with RCT (C) in permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain (P) evaluated at various time intervals?' (T).
Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between RCT and pulpotomy were included. The meta-analysis was performed on a fixed-effect model and the quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
Two randomized clinical trials were included. Amongst two trials, one has published four reports at different time points involving the same cohorts. The meta-analysis revealed no difference in postoperative pain (Day 7) between RCT and pulpotomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63-1.55, I = 0%) and quality of evidence was graded as 'High'. Clinical success was high at year 1, 98% for both interventions, however, decreased over time to 78.1% (pulpotomy) and 75.3% (RCT) at 5 years.
Pulpotomy is a definitive treatment modality that is as effective as RCT. This could have a significant impact on treatment of such patients affording the advantages of retaining a vital pulp and preventing the need for RCT.
This review could only include two trials, hence there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions. The clinical data accumulated so far suggests no difference in pain between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively and a single randomized control trial suggests that the clinical success rate for both treatment modalities is similar long term. There is a need for more well-designed trials by different research groups to develop a stronger evidence base in this area.
PROSPERO database (CRD42021259744).
以自发痛为特征的牙髓炎会导致使人衰弱的疼痛。一直以来的观念是,对于这种情况只有两种治疗选择,即根管治疗(RCT)或拔牙,尽管牙髓切断术一直是一种潜在的治疗方式。
本综述旨在回答以下研究问题:“在不同时间间隔评估的、以自发痛为特征的恒牙牙髓炎患者中,与根管治疗(C)相比,牙髓切断术(部分或全部)(I)是否能带来更好的患者及临床报告结局(O)?”(T)。
两位作者独立进行研究筛选、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。在以下电子数据库中进行文献检索:科睿唯安的《科学引文索引》、Scopus、PubMed和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库。纳入比较根管治疗和牙髓切断术患者及临床报告结局的英文临床试验。采用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析,并通过推荐分级、评估、制定与评价(GRADE)方法评估证据质量。
纳入两项随机临床试验。在这两项试验中,其中一项在不同时间点发表了四份涉及同一队列的报告。荟萃分析显示,根管治疗和牙髓切断术术后第7天的疼痛无差异(OR = 0.99,95% CI 0.63 - 1.55,I² = 0%),证据质量分级为“高”。1年时临床成功率较高,两种干预措施均为98%,然而,随着时间推移,5年时牙髓切断术降至78.1%,根管治疗降至75.3%。
牙髓切断术是一种与根管治疗效果相当的确定性治疗方式。这可能对这类患者的治疗产生重大影响,具有保留活髓和避免根管治疗的优势。
本综述仅纳入两项试验,因此没有足够证据得出有力结论。目前积累的临床数据表明,术后第7天根管治疗和牙髓切断术的疼痛无差异,一项随机对照试验表明两种治疗方式的长期临床成功率相似。需要不同研究小组开展更多设计良好的试验,以在该领域建立更坚实的证据基础。
PROSPERO数据库(CRD42021259744)