Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Australian dental journal Pub Date : 2023-01-20 DOI:10.1111/adj.12951

P Chen, Z Chen, Y-Y Teoh, OA Peters, CI Peters

{"title":"Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"P Chen, Z Chen, Y-Y Teoh, OA Peters, CI Peters","doi":"10.1111/adj.12951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review aimed to compare the efficiency of orifice barriers in preventing coronal microleakage <i>in vitro</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Articles published in English, German and Chinese were searched for studies describing microleakage assays for the bacterial penetration of root canal-treated teeth <i>in vitro</i>. The final sample included 18 articles for review and meta-analysis. Risk ratios and confidence intervals were determined for dichotomous variables. Ten publications using bacterial leakage models contributed to the meta-analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The addition of orifice barriers to a root canal filling was overall effective, shown by risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) demonstrating reduced microleakage with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26–0.53, <i>P</i> < 0.001), resin-modified GIC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15–0.67, <i>P</i> = 0.01), composite resin (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38–0.75, <i>P</i> < 0.001), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12–0.52, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and Cavit (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14–0.39, <i>P</i> < 0.001). There were no significant differences between GIC, resin-modified GIC, composite resin and MTA orifice barriers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Placement of an orifice barrier over the root canal filling is effective in the prevention of coronal microleakage <i>in vitro</i>. Other parameters may also affect the effectiveness of orifice barriers, including thickness and duration of exposure to the oral environment. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8593,"journal":{"name":"Australian dental journal","volume":"68 2","pages":"78-91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/adj.12951","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/adj.12951","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Aims

This systematic review aimed to compare the efficiency of orifice barriers in preventing coronal microleakage in vitro.

Methods

Articles published in English, German and Chinese were searched for studies describing microleakage assays for the bacterial penetration of root canal-treated teeth in vitro. The final sample included 18 articles for review and meta-analysis. Risk ratios and confidence intervals were determined for dichotomous variables. Ten publications using bacterial leakage models contributed to the meta-analysis.

Results

The addition of orifice barriers to a root canal filling was overall effective, shown by risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) demonstrating reduced microleakage with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26–0.53, P < 0.001), resin-modified GIC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15–0.67, P = 0.01), composite resin (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38–0.75, P < 0.001), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12–0.52, P < 0.001) and Cavit (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14–0.39, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between GIC, resin-modified GIC, composite resin and MTA orifice barriers.

Conclusions

Placement of an orifice barrier over the root canal filling is effective in the prevention of coronal microleakage in vitro. Other parameters may also affect the effectiveness of orifice barriers, including thickness and duration of exposure to the oral environment. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

防止根管治疗后冠状微渗漏的孔道屏障:系统回顾和荟萃分析

目的本系统综述旨在比较孔口屏障在体外预防冠状动脉微渗漏的效果。方法检索已发表的英文、德文和中文文献中有关体外根管治疗牙体细菌渗透的微渗漏测定方法的研究。最终样本包括18篇文章用于综述和荟萃分析。确定了二分类变量的风险比和置信区间。10篇使用细菌泄漏模型的出版物对meta分析做出了贡献。结果通过风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)显示，在根管充填中添加孔道屏障总体上是有效的，表明玻璃离子水门合剂(GIC) (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.53, P < 0.001)、树脂改性GIC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15-0.67, P = 0.01)、复合树脂(RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, P < 0.001)、三氧化矿物骨料(MTA) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.52, P < 0.001)和Cavit (RR 0.23, P < 0.001)减少了微渗漏。95% CI 0.14-0.39, P < 0.001)。GIC、树脂改性GIC、复合树脂和MTA孔道屏障之间无显著差异。结论在根管充填物上放置孔道屏障可有效预防冠状动脉微渗漏。其他参数也可能影响孔口屏障的有效性，包括厚度和暴露于口腔环境的持续时间。©2023澳大利亚牙科协会。

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

Australian dental journal 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

4.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Australian Dental Journal provides a forum for the exchange of information about new and significant research in dentistry, promoting the discipline of dentistry in Australia and throughout the world. It comprises peer-reviewed research articles as its core material, supplemented by reviews, theoretical articles, special features and commentaries.