International endodontic journal · 2024
The impact of bone grafting with/without barrier membrane placement on the outcome of apical surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Flynn Richard, Foschi Federico, Maloney Brian, Creavin Greg, Duncan Henry F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Regenerative techniques are increasingly being advocated in endodontic apical surgery (AS) to enhance the healing of periapical lesions. Various grafting and membrane materials are employed as adjuncts to modern AS.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICO question: In patients with apical periodontitis (P) what is the impact of bone grafting with/without barrier membrane materials (I) compared with surgery without grafting materials (C) on the outcome of AS evaluated clinically and radiographically (O).
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in four databases (Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) until 1 August 2023. Google Scholar was also manually searched. Studies with a prospective randomized design were included. Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool 2.0 assessed bias. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and appraisal of studies. Meta-analysis was performed using R3.5.1 software.
RESULTS: From the identified 2582 studies, eight randomized clinical trials were included for meta-analysis. Two studies had low RoB, while six had some concerns. Analysis revealed significantly better outcomes when surgery involved bone regeneration techniques than conventional surgery (OR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.32-4.31, p = .004). Subgroup analyses on individual grafts (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: -0.99 to 1.44, p = .720) (OR = -0.09, 95% CI: -1.42 to 1.23, p = .885) and membranes (OR = -1.09, 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.76, p = .247) and their combinations (OR = 0.03, 95% CI: -1.50 to 1.55, p = .970) did not yield any significant results. The type of membrane used did not significantly impact the outcome (OR = -1.09, 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.76, p = .247) nor did altering the combination of graft/membrane.
DISCUSSION: This systematic review examined the effects of bone grafting with/without membrane placement on the outcome of AS. It highlights the potential advantages of regenerative techniques and the need for further research in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, bone grafting with/without barrier membrane placement significantly improves healing after AS. Subgroup analysis of resorbable membranes or grafting did not significantly influence the outcome. The combination of membrane and graft was also not significant. Future well-designed, randomized controlled trials in this area are essential before these materials can be recommended for routine use to enhance healing outcomes in AS.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021255171).
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICO question: In patients with apical periodontitis (P) what is the impact of bone grafting with/without barrier membrane materials (I) compared with surgery without grafting materials (C) on the outcome of AS evaluated clinically and radiographically (O).
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in four databases (Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) until 1 August 2023. Google Scholar was also manually searched. Studies with a prospective randomized design were included. Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool 2.0 assessed bias. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and appraisal of studies. Meta-analysis was performed using R3.5.1 software.
RESULTS: From the identified 2582 studies, eight randomized clinical trials were included for meta-analysis. Two studies had low RoB, while six had some concerns. Analysis revealed significantly better outcomes when surgery involved bone regeneration techniques than conventional surgery (OR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.32-4.31, p = .004). Subgroup analyses on individual grafts (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: -0.99 to 1.44, p = .720) (OR = -0.09, 95% CI: -1.42 to 1.23, p = .885) and membranes (OR = -1.09, 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.76, p = .247) and their combinations (OR = 0.03, 95% CI: -1.50 to 1.55, p = .970) did not yield any significant results. The type of membrane used did not significantly impact the outcome (OR = -1.09, 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.76, p = .247) nor did altering the combination of graft/membrane.
DISCUSSION: This systematic review examined the effects of bone grafting with/without membrane placement on the outcome of AS. It highlights the potential advantages of regenerative techniques and the need for further research in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, bone grafting with/without barrier membrane placement significantly improves healing after AS. Subgroup analysis of resorbable membranes or grafting did not significantly influence the outcome. The combination of membrane and graft was also not significant. Future well-designed, randomized controlled trials in this area are essential before these materials can be recommended for routine use to enhance healing outcomes in AS.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021255171).