Suppr超能文献

根管再治疗用牙胶-哪些技术影响成功率?

Root canal re-treatment with gutta percha - which techniques influence success?

机构信息

Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AZ, UK.

School of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4BW, UK.

出版信息

Evid Based Dent. 2024 Jun;25(2):104-105. doi: 10.1038/s41432-024-01019-1. Epub 2024 May 25.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out assessing the success rate of root canal retreatment using gutta percha.

DATA SOURCES

Four of the largest databases were used to identify existing literature with no date or language restrictions. PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Scopus and other additional sources were searched. Grey literature was also reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION

Two authors, with Master's degrees in endodontics and with extensive university teaching experience, were selected to screen the databases to identify suitable studies. In case the authors were not able to agree during the study selection process, a third investigator was consulted. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were outlined and adhered to in the study selection. Two randomised controlled trials, seven single arm prospective studies and one single arm ambispective study published before the 10th of December 2022 were included. These studies evaluated the success of root canal re-treatment, obturated with gutta percha with at least a 1-year follow-up. Nine of the studies were published between 1998 and 2022. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, one in North America and one in Asia.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standard Cochrane methods to assess interval validity were used. Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) for single-arm studies, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2) was used for randomised controlled trials. Outcome measures were standardised as either success or failure of root canal retreatment. Success was classified into 2 different criteria: Strict criteria = absence of clinical signs and symptoms and radiographically normal periodontal ligament space; and Loose criteria = absence of clinical signs and symptoms and absence or reduction of apical radiolucency in the control radiograph. Statistical analysis was undertaken using R software and the Freeman-Turkey transformation was performed. Results were visualised using forest plots. Heterogeneity between studies was measured using the Cochrane Q test and I values.

RESULTS

Whilst following strict criteria, the success rate of non-surgical root canal retreatment obturated with gutta percha was 71% for 1-3 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.66-0.77) and 77% for 4-5 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.67-0.86). Heterogeneity was moderate (I = 61.4) and low (I = 0.0), respectively. Factors reducing the success rate of root canal re-retreatment under the strict criteria were older patients, mandibular teeth, molar teeth, the presence of a peri-apical radiolucency, teeth with a previous radiolucency, large peri-apical radiolucency's, higher initial periapical index scores and multiple visit-retreatments. Following the loose criteria, the success rate of non-surgical root canal re-treatment obturated with gutta percha was 87% for 1-3 years follow-up (95% CI, 0.79-0.93) with significant heterogeneity across the studies (I = 88.5%). Factors influencing the success rate under the loose criteria were large periapical lesions >5 mm and higher initial periapical index (PAI) scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical root canal retreatment results in favourable outcomes. However, there are several factors which can result in a lower success rate: the presence and size of a periapical radiolucency, a higher initial PAI score, multiple-visit retreatments, and the size and position of the tooth.

摘要

目的

对使用牙胶进行根管再治疗成功率的文献进行系统评价和荟萃分析。

数据来源

使用四个最大的数据库,无日期或语言限制地确定现有文献。检索了 PubMed、Cochrane、ScienceDirect、Scopus 等其他来源,并查阅了灰色文献。

研究选择

两名具有牙髓学硕士学位且具有丰富大学教学经验的作者被选中筛选数据库以确定合适的研究。如果作者在研究选择过程中无法达成一致,则咨询第三位研究人员。概述并遵守了具体的纳入和排除标准。纳入了两项随机对照试验、七项单臂前瞻性研究和一项 2022 年 12 月 10 日前发表的单臂混合前瞻性研究。这些研究评估了使用牙胶进行根管再治疗的成功率,随访时间至少为 1 年。其中 9 项研究发表于 1998 年至 2022 年之间。7 项研究在欧洲进行,1 项在北美进行,1 项在亚洲进行。

数据提取和综合

使用标准的 Cochrane 间隔有效性评估方法。使用单臂研究的纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表(NOS)评估个体研究的偏倚风险,使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具(RoB2)评估随机对照试验。结局测量标准为根管再治疗的成功或失败。成功分为两种不同的标准:严格标准=无临床症状和体征,牙周膜间隙影像学正常;宽松标准=无临床症状和体征,对照影像学上无根尖放射性透亮区或减少。使用 R 软件进行统计分析,并进行 Freeman-Turkey 转换。使用森林图可视化结果。使用 Cochrane Q 检验和 I 值测量研究之间的异质性。

结果

按照严格标准,使用牙胶进行非手术根管再治疗 1-3 年的成功率为 71%(95%CI,0.66-0.77),4-5 年的成功率为 77%(95%CI,0.67-0.86)。异质性为中度(I=61.4)和低度(I=0.0)。降低根管再治疗成功率的因素为患者年龄较大、下颌牙齿、磨牙、根尖周放射透亮区存在、先前有放射透亮区的牙齿、较大的根尖周放射透亮区、初始根尖周指数评分较高和多次就诊-再治疗。按照宽松标准,使用牙胶进行非手术根管再治疗 1-3 年的成功率为 87%(95%CI,0.79-0.93),研究之间存在显著异质性(I=88.5%)。影响宽松标准下成功率的因素为>5mm 的较大根尖周病变和较高的初始根尖周指数(PAI)评分。

结论

非手术根管再治疗的结果是有利的。然而,有几个因素可能导致较低的成功率:根尖周放射透亮区的存在和大小、较高的初始 PAI 评分、多次就诊-再治疗,以及牙齿的大小和位置。

相似文献

1
Root canal re-treatment with gutta percha - which techniques influence success?
Evid Based Dent. 2024 Jun;25(2):104-105. doi: 10.1038/s41432-024-01019-1. Epub 2024 May 25.
2
Outcome of root canal retreatment filled with gutta-percha techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Dent. 2024 Mar;142:104809. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104809. Epub 2023 Dec 24.
4
Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 19;10(10):CD005511. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005511.pub3.
7
Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature.
Int Endod J. 2008 Dec;41(12):1026-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01484.x.
8
Effectiveness of root canal filling materials and techniques for treatment of apical periodontitis: A systematic review.
Int Endod J. 2023 Oct;56 Suppl 3:436-454. doi: 10.1111/iej.13787. Epub 2022 Jul 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of single-visit versus multiple-visit root canal therapy for chronic anterior apical periodontitis.
Am J Transl Res. 2024 Nov 15;16(11):6804-6811. doi: 10.62347/OIPP9045. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Outcome of root canal retreatment filled with gutta-percha techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Dent. 2024 Mar;142:104809. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104809. Epub 2023 Dec 24.
2
Outcome of endodontic treatment - the elephant in the room.
Int Endod J. 2020 Mar;53(3):291-297. doi: 10.1111/iej.13238.
3
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adult Dental Patients: A Systematic Review.
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019 Mar;19(1):53-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2018.10.005. Epub 2018 Oct 25.
4
Failure of endodontic treatment: The usual suspects.
Eur J Dent. 2016 Jan-Mar;10(1):144-147. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.175682.
5
A systematic review of nonsurgical single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2014 May 8;6:45-56. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S61487. eCollection 2014.
6
Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO.
BJOG. 2012 Jul;119(8):903-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03242.x.
7
Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature -- Part 2. Influence of clinical factors.
Int Endod J. 2008 Jan;41(1):6-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01323.x. Epub 2007 Oct 10.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验