Antimicrobial effectiveness of ultrasonic irrigation in root canal treatment: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) was to answer the question as to whether the use of ultrasonic irrigation (UI) results in better antimicrobial activity in root canal disinfection compared to conventional irrigation (CI). METHODS: A literature search was performed in the main scientific databases, carried out until October 2021. The eligibility criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Two meta-analyses were conducted using R software with the "META" package. The mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) measure of effect were calculated. The fixed effect model was applied with a 95% confidence interval. The Cochrane collaboration scale was used to assess risk of bias and the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 1782 records were screened, and 12 studies meeting the criteria were included in this review. A low risk of bias was observed for most domains, except allocation concealment that was considered unclear. The certainty of evidence was classified as moderate in the OR meta-analyses and low in the MD meta-analyses. Ultrasonic irrigation resulted in a better antimicrobial effect in both meta-analyses, MD 1.42 [1.60; 1.23] p < 0.0001, I2 = 80%; and OR 3.86 [1.98; 7.53] p< 0.0001, I2 = 28.7%. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this SRM, UI presented better antimicrobial efficacy than CI. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: UI should be used by clinicians as it promotes better antimicrobial efficacy in patients undergoing endodontic treatment.

Postoperative pain in root canal treatment with ultrasonic versus conventional irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) was to answer the question whether the use of ultrasonic irrigation (UI) results in less postoperative pain (PP) compared to conventional irrigation (CI). METHODS: A literature search was performed within the main scientific databases carried out until May 2021. The eligibility criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with the "META" package, the mean difference (MD) measure of effect was calculated, and the fixed effect model was applied with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Cochrane collaboration scale was used to assess risk of bias and the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for systematic review and four for meta-analysis. UI resulted in less PP in 3 of 5 periods, at 6 h (MD - 1.40 [CI - 2.38 to - 0.42] p = 0.0052), 24 h (MD - 0.73 [CI - 1.07 to - 0.39] p = 0.0001), and 48 h (MD - 0.36 [CI - 0.59 to - 0.13] p = 0.022). However, PP showed no significant differences between the groups at 72 h and 7 days (p > 0.05). A low risk of bias was observed for most domains, except allocation that was considered unclear. The certainty of evidence was classified as moderate (24 h, 48 h, and 7 days) and low (6 and 72 h). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this SRM, UI presented less occurrence of PP than CI. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to corroborate these findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: UI should be used by clinicians as it reduces postoperative pain in patients undergoing endodontic treatment.

Avaliação da dor pós-operatória e efetividade antimicrobiana no tratamento endodôntico com uso de irrigação ultrassônica versus irrigação convencional: revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises de ensaios clínicos randomizados / Evaluation of postoperative pain and antimicrobial effectiveness in endodontic treatment using ultrasonic irrigation versus conventional irrigation: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a efetividade antimicrobiana e a dor pós-operatória (PP) da irrigação ultrassônica (IU) em comparação com a irrigação convencional (CI), por meio de duas revisões sistemática e meta-análises de ensaios clínicos randomizados, para isto foram produzidos dois artigos, um para dor pós operatória e outro para avaliação antimicrobiana, desta forma a dissertação a seguir contará com dois capítulos. Essa revisão foi elaborada seguindo o guia PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses). Após elaborada a pergunta clínica e a estratégia PICO de cada estudo, uma pesquisa bibliográfica foi realizada nas principais bases de dados científicas por meio de uma estratégia de busca elaborada com termos MeSH e termos livres adaptados para as bases de dados. As meta-análise foram conduzidas usando o software R com o pacote "META", o efeito de medida de diferença média (MD) e odds ratio (OR) foi calculada e o modelo de efeito fixo foi aplicado com um intervalo de confiança (IC) de 95%. A escala da colaboração Cochrane foi usada para avaliar o risco de viés e a ferramenta GRADE para avaliar a qualidade das evidências. Os resultados mostraram vantagem favorecendo o grupo irrigação ultrassônica em ambas as variáveis de interesse (dor pós-operatória e efetividade antimicrobiana), na dor pós-operatória, 6 ensaios clínicos randomizados (RCTs) foram incluídos para revisão sistemática e quatro para meta-análise. IU resultou em menor PP em 3 dos 5 períodos, 6 horas (MD -1,40 [CI -2,38 a - 0,42] p = 0,0052), 24 horas (MD -0,73 [CI -1,07 a -0,39] p = 0,0001), e 48 horas (MD -0,36 [CI -0,59 a -0,13] p = 0,022). No entanto, a PP não apresentou diferenças significativas entre os grupos em 72 horas e 7 dias (p> 0,05). Um baixo risco de viés foi observado para a maioria dos domínios, exceto a alocação que foi considerada pouco clara. A certeza da evidência foi classificada em moderada (24 horas, 48 horas e 7 dias) e baixa (6 e 72 horas). Já na efetividade antimicrobiana, 12 RCTs foram incluídos para a revisão sistemática e oito para as meta-análises onde 4 foram utilizadas para (MD) e 4 para (OR). Em ambas análises a IU resultou em melhor efeito antimicrobiano em comparação com a CI MD -1,42 [-1,60; -1,23] p < 0,0001, I2 = 80% e OR 3.86 [1.98; 7.53] p< 0.0001, I2 = 28.7%. Um baixo risco de viés foi observado para a maioria dos domínios, exceto a alocação que foi considerada pouco clara. A certeza das evidências foi considerada moderada na meta-análise utilizando OR, devido aos achados de imprecisão, e baixa na meta-análise utilizando MD devido a presença de inconsistência e imprecisão. Desta forma é possível concluir que dentro das limitações das presentes revisões sistemáticas a IU apresentou resultados favoráveis tanto para dor pós-operatória quanto para o aumento da efetividade antimicrobiana. Contudo ensaios clínicos randomizados mais robustos são necessários para corroborar com esses achados(AU)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial effectiveness and postoperative pain (PP) of ultrasonic irrigation (UI) compared to conventional irrigation (CI), through two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials for this, two articles were produced, one for postoperative pain and another for antimicrobial evaluation, so the dissertation below will have two chapters. This review was prepared following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses). After preparing the clinical question and the PICO strategy for each study, a literature search was carried out in the main eletronic databases through a search strategy elaborated with MeSH terms and free terms adapted to the databases. Meta-analyses were conducted using the R software with the "META" package, the mean difference (MD) and odds ratios (OR) was the measure effect necessary and the fixed-effect model was applied with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Cochrane Collaboration Scale was used to assess the risk of bias and the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence. The results showed an advantage favoring the ultrasonic irrigation group in both variables of interest (postoperative pain and antimicrobial effectiveness), in postoperative pain, 6 RCTs were included for systematic review and four for metaanalysis. UI resulted in lower PP in 3 of the 5 periods, 6 hours (MD -1.40 [CI -2.38 to -0.42] p = 0.0052), 24 hours (MD -0.73 [CI -1 .07 to -0.39] p = 0.0001), and 48 hours (MD -0.36 [CI -0.59 to -0.13] p = 0.022). However, PP did not show significant differences between groups at 72 hours and 7 days (p> 0.05). A low risk of bias was observed for most domains, except the allocation was considered unclear. The certainty of the evidence was classified as moderate (24 hours, 48 hours and 7 days) and low (6 and 72 hours). In the study of antimicrobial effectiveness, 12 RCTs were included for the systematic review and 8 for the meta-analyses where 4 were used for (MD) and 4 for (OR). In both analyses, UI resulted in better antimicrobial effect compared to CI MD -1.42 [- 1.60; -1.23] p< 0.0001, I2 = 80% and OR 3.86 [1.98; 7.53] p< 0.0001, I2 = 28.7%. A low risk of bias was observed for most domains, except the allocation was considered unclear. The certainty of evidence was considered moderate in the meta-analysis using OR, due to the imprecision findings, and low in the meta-analysis using MD due to the presence of inconsistency and imprecision. Thus, it is possible to conclude that, within the limitations of the present systematic reviews, UI presented favorable results both for postoperative pain and for the increase in antimicrobial effectiveness. However, more robust randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these findings(AU)