Effect of endodontic sealer on postoperative pain: a network meta-analysis.

Cynthia Maria Chaves Monteiro, Ana Cristina Rodrigues Martins, Alessandra Reis, Juliana Larocca de Geus
{"title":"Effect of endodontic sealer on postoperative pain: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Cynthia Maria Chaves Monteiro,&nbsp;Ana Cristina Rodrigues Martins,&nbsp;Alessandra Reis,&nbsp;Juliana Larocca de Geus","doi":"10.5395/rde.2023.48.e5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer the following focused research question: \"Does the type of endodontic sealer affect the postoperative pain in patients who received endodontic treatment?\" Different databases and grey literature were surveyed. Only one randomized controlled trial were included. The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the risk and intensity of postoperative pain. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Out of 11,601 studies, 15 remained for qualitative analyses and 12 for meta-analysis. Seven studies were classified at high risk of bias, and 8 studies raised some concerns. No significant differences between the endodontic materials were observed in the direct comparisons, both in risk and in intensity of postoperative pain (pairwise comparisons with 2 studies: I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; <i>p</i> > 0.05 and 8 studies: I<sup>2</sup> = 23%; <i>p</i> > 0.05, respectively). The certainty of the evidence was graded as low or moderate. There was no difference in the risk and intensity of postoperative pain after filling with different endodontic sealers. Further systematic reviews should be conducted.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020215314.</p>","PeriodicalId":21102,"journal":{"name":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a7/83/rde-48-e5.PMC9982236.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2023.48.e5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer the following focused research question: "Does the type of endodontic sealer affect the postoperative pain in patients who received endodontic treatment?" Different databases and grey literature were surveyed. Only one randomized controlled trial were included. The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the risk and intensity of postoperative pain. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Out of 11,601 studies, 15 remained for qualitative analyses and 12 for meta-analysis. Seven studies were classified at high risk of bias, and 8 studies raised some concerns. No significant differences between the endodontic materials were observed in the direct comparisons, both in risk and in intensity of postoperative pain (pairwise comparisons with 2 studies: I2 = 0%; p > 0.05 and 8 studies: I2 = 23%; p > 0.05, respectively). The certainty of the evidence was graded as low or moderate. There was no difference in the risk and intensity of postoperative pain after filling with different endodontic sealers. Further systematic reviews should be conducted.

Trial registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020215314.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

根管封闭剂对术后疼痛的影响:网络荟萃分析。
本系统综述和网络荟萃分析旨在回答以下重点研究问题:“牙髓封闭器的类型是否影响接受牙髓治疗的患者术后疼痛?”调查了不同的数据库和灰色文献。仅纳入一项随机对照试验。使用Cochrane协作工具评估研究的偏倚风险。进行随机效应荟萃分析,比较术后疼痛的风险和强度。证据体的质量采用建议分级评估、发展和评价方法进行评估。在11,601项研究中,有15项用于定性分析,12项用于荟萃分析。7项研究被归类为高偏倚风险,8项研究提出了一些担忧。直接比较中观察到不同根管材料在风险和术后疼痛强度方面均无显著差异(2项研究的两两比较:I2 = 0%;p > 0.05, 8项研究:I2 = 23%;P > 0.05)。证据的确定性被划分为低或中等。充填不同牙髓封闭剂后,术后疼痛风险和强度无差异。应进行进一步的系统审查。试验注册:PROSPERO标识符:CRD42020215314。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信