Clinical oral investigations · 2020
Is there evidence for the use of lesion sterilization and tissue repair therapy in the endodontic treatment of primary teeth? A systematic review and meta-analyses.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Duarte Maysa Lannes, Pires Paula Maciel, Ferreira Daniele Masterson, Pintor Andréa Vaz Braga, de Almeida Neves Aline, Maia Lucianne Cople, Primo Laura Guimarães
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether lesion sterilization and tissue repair (LSTR) technique resulted in similar clinical and radiographic success outcomes as compared with pulpectomy in primary teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized clinical trials comparing LSTR with pulpectomy by means of clinical and radiographic parameters were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology and the certainty of evidence was determined by GRADE.
RESULTS: Six articles were included. Conventional pulpectomy was favored with respect to radiographic success frequency in the systematic review. Four studies were included in meta-analyses. Based on the clinical results at 6 months (RR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.94-1.04, p = 0.67; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR = 0.97, 95% CI, 0.90-1.04, p = 0.34; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.77-1.04, p = 0.14; I2 = 0%) and radiographic findings at 6 months (RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.78-1.06, p = 0.23; I2 = 9%), 12 months (RR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.65-1.18, p = 0.38; I2 = 64%), and 18 months (RR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.69-1.02, p = 0.08; I2 = 0%), there was no difference observed regarding success between the two treatments. The quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference between the LSTR and pulpectomy approaches could be confirmed by meta-analyses. The quality of evidence according to the GRADE scheme ranged from moderate to very low.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present meta-analyses could not demonstrate the superiority of one treatment over the other.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized clinical trials comparing LSTR with pulpectomy by means of clinical and radiographic parameters were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology and the certainty of evidence was determined by GRADE.
RESULTS: Six articles were included. Conventional pulpectomy was favored with respect to radiographic success frequency in the systematic review. Four studies were included in meta-analyses. Based on the clinical results at 6 months (RR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.94-1.04, p = 0.67; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR = 0.97, 95% CI, 0.90-1.04, p = 0.34; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.77-1.04, p = 0.14; I2 = 0%) and radiographic findings at 6 months (RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.78-1.06, p = 0.23; I2 = 9%), 12 months (RR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.65-1.18, p = 0.38; I2 = 64%), and 18 months (RR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.69-1.02, p = 0.08; I2 = 0%), there was no difference observed regarding success between the two treatments. The quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference between the LSTR and pulpectomy approaches could be confirmed by meta-analyses. The quality of evidence according to the GRADE scheme ranged from moderate to very low.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present meta-analyses could not demonstrate the superiority of one treatment over the other.