Treatment Outcomes Following Root Perforation Repair in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
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.

恒牙牙根穿孔修复后的治疗结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估恒牙牙根穿孔修复的治疗效果,并确定相关的预后因素。方法:综合检索PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane Library、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar,确定2000年1月至2026年2月间发表的研究。纳入随访≥12个月的恒牙根孔修复治疗结果的研究。两位研究者独立进行研究选择、数据提取和使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所关键评估清单进行偏倚风险评估。使用牛津循证医学中心证据水平和建议分级评估、发展和评估方法评估证据的水平和确定性。随机效应荟萃分析估计了有利结果的比例以及与术前预后因素的关联。结果:9项评估非手术牙根穿孔修复的观察性研究被纳入,其中7项对meta分析有贡献。总的有利结局为89.7% (95% CI: 83.0%-94.9%)。较小的穿孔(≤3mm)比较大的缺损获得良好结果的几率更高(OR=2.69; 95% CI: 1.29-5.59; p=0.008),而上颌牙比下颌牙获得良好结果的几率更高(OR=2.31; 95% CI: 1.12-4.75; p=0.023)。牙齿类型、穿孔位置、性别、术前放射率和术前体征和症状与良好结果无显著相关。结论:非手术修复牙根穿孔通常具有良好的治疗效果,特别是对于较小的牙根穿孔(≤3mm)和上颌牙。考虑到大量临床异质性和低确定性证据,这些发现应谨慎解释。
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
Journal of endodontics
Journal of endodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
224
审稿时长
42 days
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书