Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Regenerative Endodontic Procedures for the Treatment of Necrotic Mature Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Glynis, Antonios; Foschi, Federico; Kefalou, Ismini; Koletsi, Despina; Tzanetakis, Giorgos N.
Afiliação
  • Glynis A; Private Practice, Southampton, United Kingdom.
  • Foschi F; Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, Guy's Dental Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
  • Kefalou I; Private Practice, Southampton, United Kingdom.
  • Koletsi D; Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Tzanetakis GN; Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: gtzanet@dent.uoa.gr.
J Endod ; 47(6): 873-882, 2021 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33811981
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are intended to repair and regenerate part of the pulp-dentin complex. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the existing evidence on the effectiveness of REPs on mature teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis.

METHODS:

Electronic database and hand searches were performed on 8 databases of published and unpublished literature from inception to January 3, 2021, for the identification of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective clinical trials. The related key words included "regenerative," "pulp revascularization," "revitalization procedure," and "necrotic mature teeth." A random effects meta-analysis was conducted assessing success as the main outcome treatment. Risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and the quality of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS:

Of the 337 initial hits, 4 RCTs were eligible for inclusion, whereas 3 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, there was no difference in the relative risk for a successful/unsuccessful treatment outcome between REPs or conventional treatment (3 studies, relative risk = 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.15; P = .61; heterogeneity I2 = 0.0%, P = .53; prediction interval = 0.51-2.09). Risk of bias ranged from low to raising some concerns, whereas the quality of the evidence was graded as moderate.

CONCLUSIONS:

Based on moderate-quality evidence, REPs appear as a viable treatment alternative for mature necrotic teeth with periapical lesions at present. Furthermore, well-designed RCTs might also provide confirmatory evidence in this respect while also framing a backbone for standardization of the therapeutic protocol of REPs.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Periodontite Periapical / Endodontia Regenerativa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Periodontite Periapical / Endodontia Regenerativa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article