Yee Ang, Lay Ann Teh, Jonathan Jun Xian Yuen, Galvin Sim Siang Lin
{"title":"Treatment Outcomes Following Root Perforation Repair in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Yee Ang, Lay Ann Teh, Jonathan Jun Xian Yuen, Galvin Sim Siang Lin","doi":"10.1016/j.joen.2026.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of root perforation repair in permanent teeth and identify relevant prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified studies published between January 2000 and February 2026. Studies reporting treatment outcomes of repaired root perforations in permanent teeth with ≥12 months of follow-up were included. Two investigators independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Level and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the proportion of favorable outcomes and associations with preoperative prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine observational studies evaluating nonsurgical root perforation repair were included, of which 7 contributed to the meta-analysis. The pooled favorable outcome was 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.0%-94.9%). Smaller perforations (≤3 mm) were associated with higher odds of a favorable outcome than larger defects (odds ratio = 2.69; 95% CI: 1.29-5.59; P = .008), while maxillary teeth demonstrated higher odds than mandibular teeth (odds ratio = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.12-4.75; P = .023). Tooth type, perforation location, gender, preoperative radiolucency, and preoperative signs and symptoms were not significantly associated with favorable outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nonsurgical root perforation repair appears to be associated with generally favorable treatment outcomes, particularly in smaller perforations (≤3 mm) and maxillary teeth. These findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the substantial clinical heterogeneity and low-certainty evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2026.08.003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of root perforation repair in permanent teeth and identify relevant prognostic factors.
Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified studies published between January 2000 and February 2026. Studies reporting treatment outcomes of repaired root perforations in permanent teeth with ≥12 months of follow-up were included. Two investigators independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Level and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the proportion of favorable outcomes and associations with preoperative prognostic factors.
Results: Nine observational studies evaluating nonsurgical root perforation repair were included, of which 7 contributed to the meta-analysis. The pooled favorable outcome was 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.0%-94.9%). Smaller perforations (≤3 mm) were associated with higher odds of a favorable outcome than larger defects (odds ratio = 2.69; 95% CI: 1.29-5.59; P = .008), while maxillary teeth demonstrated higher odds than mandibular teeth (odds ratio = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.12-4.75; P = .023). Tooth type, perforation location, gender, preoperative radiolucency, and preoperative signs and symptoms were not significantly associated with favorable outcomes.
Conclusions: Nonsurgical root perforation repair appears to be associated with generally favorable treatment outcomes, particularly in smaller perforations (≤3 mm) and maxillary teeth. These findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the substantial clinical heterogeneity and low-certainty evidence.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Endodontics, the official journal of the American Association of Endodontists, publishes scientific articles, case reports and comparison studies evaluating materials and methods of pulp conservation and endodontic treatment. Endodontists and general dentists can learn about new concepts in root canal treatment and the latest advances in techniques and instrumentation in the one journal that helps them keep pace with rapid changes in this field.