Anbalagan Karthikeyan, Jena Amit, Mohanty Saumyakanta, Mallick Rashmirekha, Shashirekha Govind, Sarangi Priyanka
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sriram Chandra Bhanja Dental College & Hospital, Utkal University, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan (Deemed to Be) University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Odontology. 2025 Jan;113(1):61-79. doi: 10.1007/s10266-024-00999-x. Epub 2024 Sep 20.
This systematic review was designed to answer the following question: Does chitosan provide better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than other root canal irrigants? A literature search was done using electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO host, Grey Literature Report, and Open Grey from inception to June 18, 2024. The reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed data extraction. Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias in the selected studies. The search retrieved 2330 studies. After analysis, 36 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included, with 19 involving smear layer removal, 16 involving antibacterial efficacy, and 1 involving both. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was medium. Chitosan removed the smear layer more effectively than citric acid and acetic acid, similar to MTAD and Qmix, with conflicting results against EDTA. In addition, chitosan demonstrated comparable antibacterial efficacy to chlorhexidine, propolis, and photodynamic therapy but was less effective than sodium hypochlorite. Based on available evidence, it was found that chitosan provided better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than most root canal irrigants compared in this systematic review. There was substantial heterogeneity in the methodology of included studies. As a result, this review highly recommends further research using standardized methods to assess the effectiveness of chitosan as a root canal irrigant in in-vitro studies to validate its clinical use.
与其他根管冲洗剂相比,壳聚糖在去除玷污层和抗菌效果方面是否更佳?使用电子数据库PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆、EBSCO主机、灰色文献报告和Open Grey进行文献检索,检索时间从数据库建立至2024年6月18日。还对纳入文章的参考文献列表进行了手工检索。两名评审员根据纳入和排除标准独立评估研究的 eligibility,并进行数据提取。两名评审员独立评估所选研究的偏倚风险。检索到2330项研究。经过分析,36项研究符合纳入标准并被纳入,其中19项涉及玷污层去除,16项涉及抗菌效果,1项涉及两者。纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为中等。壳聚糖去除玷污层的效果比柠檬酸和乙酸更有效,与MTAD和Qmix相似,与EDTA相比结果存在冲突。此外,壳聚糖的抗菌效果与氯己定、蜂胶和光动力疗法相当,但比次氯酸钠效果差。基于现有证据,发现在本系统评价中,壳聚糖在去除玷污层和抗菌效果方面比大多数根管冲洗剂更佳。纳入研究的方法存在很大异质性。因此,本评价强烈建议在体外研究中使用标准化方法进一步研究壳聚糖作为根管冲洗剂的有效性,以验证其临床应用。