Herbst Sascha R, Pitchika Vinay, Herbst Chantal S, Kosan Esra, Schwendicke Falk
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Department for Periodontology, Oral Medicine and Oral Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Int Endod J. 2025 Aug;58(8):1110-1125. doi: 10.1111/iej.14256. Epub 2025 May 20.
Direct pulp capping (DPC) is the least minimal approach for maintaining pulp vitality after pulp exposure. Besides calcium hydroxide (CaOH), hydraulic calcium silicate cements (HCSC) have increasingly been used for DPC.
During the S3 level guideline development for material choice in DPC, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature comparing CaOH and HCSC for DPC on permanent teeth. We aimed (1) to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes and (2) patient-reported outcomes of DPC.
Three databases from 1 January 1990 to 19 February 2025 (MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Prospective comparative clinical studies comparing CaOH to HCSC for DPC in permanent teeth with healthy or reversibly inflamed pulps were included. Studies on primary teeth or teeth indicative of irreversible pulpitis, teeth with unclear diagnoses or pulp exposure of non-cariogenic origin were excluded. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using the GRADE approach. Using the effect sizes and standard errors for every study, pairwise meta-analysis was performed comparing CaOH and different subgroups of HCSC. Success was defined as the absence of any clinical symptoms (e.g. pain, swelling) and any radiographical signs of an apical lesion. Patient-reported outcomes were additionally sought after.
Five randomized-controlled trials including 552 teeth with an overall moderate certainty of evidence were included. HCSC showed a significantly higher probability of success compared to CaOH (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval [1.7, 4.22], I = 0%). The differences between various HCSC materials were minimal. Meta-regression indicated that neither follow-up nor risk of bias significantly influenced treatment outcomes, and the funnel plot did not reveal evidence of publication bias.
HCSC showed significantly higher probability for clinical and radiographic success than CaOH. This finding comes with moderate certainty. The impact of material choice on postoperative pain remains unclear. Future clinical studies should include patient-reported outcomes.
直接盖髓术(DPC)是牙髓暴露后维持牙髓活力的最小侵入性方法。除了氢氧化钙(CaOH)外,水硬性硅酸钙水泥(HCSC)越来越多地用于直接盖髓术。
在制定直接盖髓术材料选择的S3级指南期间,我们对现有文献进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了CaOH和HCSC用于恒牙直接盖髓术的效果。我们旨在(1)评估临床和影像学结果,以及(2)直接盖髓术患者报告的结果。
检索1990年1月1日至2025年2月19日的三个数据库(通过PubMed检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane系统评价数据库)。纳入比较CaOH和HCSC用于健康或可逆性炎症牙髓恒牙直接盖髓术的前瞻性比较临床研究。排除关于乳牙或提示不可逆性牙髓炎的牙齿、诊断不明确的牙齿或非龋源性牙髓暴露牙齿的研究。使用GRADE方法评估偏倚风险和证据确定性。利用每项研究的效应大小和标准误差,对CaOH和HCSC的不同亚组进行成对荟萃分析。成功定义为无任何临床症状(如疼痛、肿胀)和根尖病变的任何影像学表现。此外还收集了患者报告的结果。
纳入了五项随机对照试验共552颗牙齿,证据总体确定性为中等。与CaOH相比,HCSC的成功概率显著更高(优势比(OR):2.68,95%置信区间[1.7,4.22],I² = 0%)。各种HCSC材料之间的差异很小。Meta回归表明,随访时间和偏倚风险均未显著影响治疗结果,漏斗图未显示发表偏倚的证据。
HCSC在临床和影像学成功方面的概率显著高于CaOH。这一发现的确定性为中等。材料选择对术后疼痛的影响尚不清楚。未来的临床研究应纳入患者报告的结果。