原发牙髓治疗干预:系统回顾和元分析。

Pediatric dentistry Pub Date : 2023-11-15
James A Coll, Vineet Dhar, Chia-Yu Chen, Yasmi O Crystal, Marcio Guelmann, Abdullah A Marghalani, Shahad AlShamali, Zheng Xu, Gerald Glickman, Rachel Wedeward
{"title":"原发牙髓治疗干预:系统回顾和元分析。","authors":"James A Coll, Vineet Dhar, Chia-Yu Chen, Yasmi O Crystal, Marcio Guelmann, Abdullah A Marghalani, Shahad AlShamali, Zheng Xu, Gerald Glickman, Rachel Wedeward","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> to update the 2016 systematic review evidence for vital pulp therapy (VPT) for primary teeth affected by caries or trauma. <b>Methods:</b> The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study (PICOS) design inclusion/exclusion was used for multiple databases. Risk of bias, meta-analyses using RevMan, and certainty of evidence was created. <b>Results:</b> A total of 299 studies were included; no trauma was found. Indirect pulp treatment (IPT) resulted in 97 percent success. Two calcium silicate cement (CSC) pulpotomies' success using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine<sup>®</sup> were 94 percent and 90 percent, respectively, greater than for direct pulp capping (DPC; 86 percent) and other pulpotomies (moderate certainty). The success of IPT versus pulpotomy at 24 months showed no significant difference (P=0.31). Different liners or capping agents did not affect the success of IPT (P=0.79) or DPC at 24 months (P=0.24). The two CSC pulpotomies were not significantly different based on 24-month success (P=0.34). The formocresol pulpotomy success at 24 months was significantly lower than for MTA (P=0.02). Ferric sulfate had a significant lower success at 24 months than MTA pulpotomy (69 percent versus 92 percent; P=0.03). Zinc oxide eugenol, as a singular pulpotomy, had low success (65 percent). Selective/stepwise caries removal did significantly better at avoiding pulp exposures than complete excavation (P<0.001). Complete, selective, and no caries removal (Hall technique [HT], steel crown placement with no caries removal) had no significant difference in pulp vitality success for deep caries at 24 months (P=0.29). For deep caries affecting vital incisors, pulpotomy had significantly greater success than pulpectomy (P=0.002). The following had no significant effect on MTA pulpotomy success: coronal pulp removal methods; irrigation solution; method to control hemorrhage; base over MTA; treatment in one or two visits; and anterior or posterior teeth. <b>Conclusions:</b> Vital pulp therapy success of indirect pulp treatment or two calcium silicate cement pulpotomies demonstrated improved success over direct pulp capping and other pulpotomies based on 24-month evidence with moderate certainty. The Hall technique did not significantly reduce pulp vitality success versus caries removal.</p>","PeriodicalId":101357,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric dentistry","volume":"45 6","pages":"474-546"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Primary Tooth Vital Pulp Treatment Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.\",\"authors\":\"James A Coll, Vineet Dhar, Chia-Yu Chen, Yasmi O Crystal, Marcio Guelmann, Abdullah A Marghalani, Shahad AlShamali, Zheng Xu, Gerald Glickman, Rachel Wedeward\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> to update the 2016 systematic review evidence for vital pulp therapy (VPT) for primary teeth affected by caries or trauma. <b>Methods:</b> The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study (PICOS) design inclusion/exclusion was used for multiple databases. Risk of bias, meta-analyses using RevMan, and certainty of evidence was created. <b>Results:</b> A total of 299 studies were included; no trauma was found. Indirect pulp treatment (IPT) resulted in 97 percent success. Two calcium silicate cement (CSC) pulpotomies' success using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine<sup>®</sup> were 94 percent and 90 percent, respectively, greater than for direct pulp capping (DPC; 86 percent) and other pulpotomies (moderate certainty). The success of IPT versus pulpotomy at 24 months showed no significant difference (P=0.31). Different liners or capping agents did not affect the success of IPT (P=0.79) or DPC at 24 months (P=0.24). The two CSC pulpotomies were not significantly different based on 24-month success (P=0.34). The formocresol pulpotomy success at 24 months was significantly lower than for MTA (P=0.02). Ferric sulfate had a significant lower success at 24 months than MTA pulpotomy (69 percent versus 92 percent; P=0.03). Zinc oxide eugenol, as a singular pulpotomy, had low success (65 percent). Selective/stepwise caries removal did significantly better at avoiding pulp exposures than complete excavation (P<0.001). Complete, selective, and no caries removal (Hall technique [HT], steel crown placement with no caries removal) had no significant difference in pulp vitality success for deep caries at 24 months (P=0.29). For deep caries affecting vital incisors, pulpotomy had significantly greater success than pulpectomy (P=0.002). The following had no significant effect on MTA pulpotomy success: coronal pulp removal methods; irrigation solution; method to control hemorrhage; base over MTA; treatment in one or two visits; and anterior or posterior teeth. <b>Conclusions:</b> Vital pulp therapy success of indirect pulp treatment or two calcium silicate cement pulpotomies demonstrated improved success over direct pulp capping and other pulpotomies based on 24-month evidence with moderate certainty. The Hall technique did not significantly reduce pulp vitality success versus caries removal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric dentistry\",\"volume\":\"45 6\",\"pages\":\"474-546\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:更新 2016 年系统综述证据,对受龋齿或外伤影响的原牙进行活髓治疗(VPT)。方法:在多个数据库中使用人群、干预、比较、结果和研究(PICOS)设计纳入/排除。使用 RevMan 进行偏倚风险、荟萃分析和证据确定性分析。结果:共纳入 299 项研究;未发现创伤。间接牙髓治疗(IPT)的成功率为97%。使用三氧化二铝矿物骨料(MTA)和Biodentine®的两种硅酸钙水泥(CSC)牙髓切开术的成功率分别为94%和90%,高于直接牙髓盖髓术(DPC;86%)和其他牙髓切开术(中等确定性)。24 个月后,IPT 与牙髓切断术的成功率无显著差异(P=0.31)。24个月后,不同的衬垫或封盖剂不会影响IPT(P=0.79)或DPC(P=0.24)的成功率。两种 CSC 切髓术在 24 个月的成功率上没有明显差异(P=0.34)。甲氧甲酚碎髓术 24 个月的成功率明显低于 MTA(P=0.02)。硫酸铁 24 个月的成功率明显低于 MTA 切髓术(69% 对 92%;P=0.03)。氧化锌丁香酚作为一种单一的牙髓切断术,成功率较低(65%)。在避免牙髓暴露方面,选择性/逐步去除龋齿的效果明显优于完全挖除(PConclusions:根据24个月的证据,间接牙髓治疗或两次硅酸钙水门汀牙髓切断术的牙髓治疗成功率高于直接盖髓术和其他牙髓切断术,且具有中等确定性。霍尔技术与龋齿去除相比,并没有明显降低牙髓活力治疗的成功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Primary Tooth Vital Pulp Treatment Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

Purpose: to update the 2016 systematic review evidence for vital pulp therapy (VPT) for primary teeth affected by caries or trauma. Methods: The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study (PICOS) design inclusion/exclusion was used for multiple databases. Risk of bias, meta-analyses using RevMan, and certainty of evidence was created. Results: A total of 299 studies were included; no trauma was found. Indirect pulp treatment (IPT) resulted in 97 percent success. Two calcium silicate cement (CSC) pulpotomies' success using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine® were 94 percent and 90 percent, respectively, greater than for direct pulp capping (DPC; 86 percent) and other pulpotomies (moderate certainty). The success of IPT versus pulpotomy at 24 months showed no significant difference (P=0.31). Different liners or capping agents did not affect the success of IPT (P=0.79) or DPC at 24 months (P=0.24). The two CSC pulpotomies were not significantly different based on 24-month success (P=0.34). The formocresol pulpotomy success at 24 months was significantly lower than for MTA (P=0.02). Ferric sulfate had a significant lower success at 24 months than MTA pulpotomy (69 percent versus 92 percent; P=0.03). Zinc oxide eugenol, as a singular pulpotomy, had low success (65 percent). Selective/stepwise caries removal did significantly better at avoiding pulp exposures than complete excavation (P<0.001). Complete, selective, and no caries removal (Hall technique [HT], steel crown placement with no caries removal) had no significant difference in pulp vitality success for deep caries at 24 months (P=0.29). For deep caries affecting vital incisors, pulpotomy had significantly greater success than pulpectomy (P=0.002). The following had no significant effect on MTA pulpotomy success: coronal pulp removal methods; irrigation solution; method to control hemorrhage; base over MTA; treatment in one or two visits; and anterior or posterior teeth. Conclusions: Vital pulp therapy success of indirect pulp treatment or two calcium silicate cement pulpotomies demonstrated improved success over direct pulp capping and other pulpotomies based on 24-month evidence with moderate certainty. The Hall technique did not significantly reduce pulp vitality success versus caries removal.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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