在牙髓治疗过程中,实现根尖通畅是否会增加术后疼痛?

Q3 Dentistry
Rachel Strickland, Luca Licheri, David Edwards
{"title":"在牙髓治疗过程中,实现根尖通畅是否会增加术后疼痛?","authors":"Rachel Strickland, Luca Licheri, David Edwards","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01058-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature up to May 2023. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two authors screened databases to identify suitable studies, with a third investigator resolving disagreements. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving individuals without systemic diseases, who underwent root canal treatment in a permanent tooth with or without apical patency. Outcomes included pain, number of patients with pain and analgesic use. Exclusion criteria included patients who had undergone tooth extraction, incomplete data reports and studies which were not RCTs. There were no limits on publication language. A search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature from Google Scholar, ProQuest, OpenAire, and BASE identified 92 articles until May 2023. After removing 42 duplicates, 50 article full texts were assessed. Ultimately, 12 studies were included, seven of which were new relative to previous systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data were analysed using RevMan 5.4 software. Dichotomous categorical data were analysed through the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with the inverse variance method used for continuous data. Following assessment of heterogeneity with the χ<sup>2</sup> test, fixed- or random- effects modeling was used. Pain scores were reported within one week by ten studies, but three were excluded from meta-analysis due to methodological issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Studies involving participants aged 14-65 years, with pulp necrosis, apical periodontitis, or pulpitis, were included for analysis. Irrigation solutions varied from saline to sodium hypochlorite (2.25-5.25%), EDTA, citric acid, or chlorhexidine. Types of teeth treated included molars and anterior teeth. All studies used a 10# K-file for apical patency and various hand and nickel-titanium instruments for canal preparation. Generally, there was slightly reduced post-operative pain reported through the maintenance of patency. This was evident in the initial post-operative period of 24 h (OR = 1.69, P = 0.002), 1-day (MD = -1.69, P = 0.03) and 2-days (MD = -0.85, P = 0.04), but became non-significant over the remainder of the 7-day monitoring period. There was no significant difference in analgesic use between groups (OR = 0.82, P = 0.42). Studies were classified into three groups based on quality: four high quality with low risk of bias; three moderate quality with some concerns; and five low quality with high risk of bias. Evidence quality varied; pain scores on days 1 and 2 were of low quality, with very low quality for 12 h and days 3-6. High heterogeneity and imprecision were noted, especially in pain measurements and analgesic use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The meta-analysis indicates that during the initial post-operative period, apical patency significantly reduces postoperative pain. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously due to high heterogeneity and variable evidence quality. Given that apical patency is seen as desirable for achieving the biological aims of endodontic treatment, the fact that it also appears to reduce post-operative pain helps to align patient reported outcome measures with traditional measures indicating success.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does achieving apical patency increase postoperative pain during endodontics?\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Strickland, Luca Licheri, David Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01058-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature up to May 2023. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two authors screened databases to identify suitable studies, with a third investigator resolving disagreements. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving individuals without systemic diseases, who underwent root canal treatment in a permanent tooth with or without apical patency. Outcomes included pain, number of patients with pain and analgesic use. Exclusion criteria included patients who had undergone tooth extraction, incomplete data reports and studies which were not RCTs. There were no limits on publication language. A search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature from Google Scholar, ProQuest, OpenAire, and BASE identified 92 articles until May 2023. After removing 42 duplicates, 50 article full texts were assessed. Ultimately, 12 studies were included, seven of which were new relative to previous systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data were analysed using RevMan 5.4 software. Dichotomous categorical data were analysed through the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with the inverse variance method used for continuous data. Following assessment of heterogeneity with the χ<sup>2</sup> test, fixed- or random- effects modeling was used. Pain scores were reported within one week by ten studies, but three were excluded from meta-analysis due to methodological issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Studies involving participants aged 14-65 years, with pulp necrosis, apical periodontitis, or pulpitis, were included for analysis. Irrigation solutions varied from saline to sodium hypochlorite (2.25-5.25%), EDTA, citric acid, or chlorhexidine. Types of teeth treated included molars and anterior teeth. All studies used a 10# K-file for apical patency and various hand and nickel-titanium instruments for canal preparation. Generally, there was slightly reduced post-operative pain reported through the maintenance of patency. This was evident in the initial post-operative period of 24 h (OR = 1.69, P = 0.002), 1-day (MD = -1.69, P = 0.03) and 2-days (MD = -0.85, P = 0.04), but became non-significant over the remainder of the 7-day monitoring period. There was no significant difference in analgesic use between groups (OR = 0.82, P = 0.42). Studies were classified into three groups based on quality: four high quality with low risk of bias; three moderate quality with some concerns; and five low quality with high risk of bias. Evidence quality varied; pain scores on days 1 and 2 were of low quality, with very low quality for 12 h and days 3-6. High heterogeneity and imprecision were noted, especially in pain measurements and analgesic use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The meta-analysis indicates that during the initial post-operative period, apical patency significantly reduces postoperative pain. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously due to high heterogeneity and variable evidence quality. Given that apical patency is seen as desirable for achieving the biological aims of endodontic treatment, the fact that it also appears to reduce post-operative pain helps to align patient reported outcome measures with traditional measures indicating success.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01058-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01058-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数据来源:PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library 以及截至 2023 年 5 月的灰色文献。共纳入 12 项研究进行荟萃分析:两位作者筛选数据库以确定合适的研究,由第三位研究者解决分歧。纳入标准为随机对照试验(RCT),研究对象为无全身性疾病、接受过根管治疗且根尖通畅或不通畅的恒牙患者。结果包括疼痛、疼痛患者人数和镇痛剂使用情况。排除标准包括接受过拔牙治疗的患者、数据报告不完整以及非 RCT 研究。发表语言不限。截至 2023 年 5 月,在 PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library 以及 Google Scholar、ProQuest、OpenAire 和 BASE 的灰色文献中检索到 92 篇文章。在删除 42 篇重复文章后,对 50 篇文章的全文进行了评估。最终纳入了 12 项研究,其中 7 项是相对于之前的系统综述而言的新研究:数据使用RevMan 5.4软件进行分析。二分类数据通过Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel检验进行分析,连续数据则采用逆方差法。用χ2检验评估异质性后,采用固定效应或随机效应模型。有十项研究报告了一周内的疼痛评分,但有三项研究因方法问题被排除在荟萃分析之外:纳入分析的研究涉及 14-65 岁的牙髓坏死、根尖牙周炎或牙髓炎患者。冲洗溶液包括生理盐水、次氯酸钠(2.25-5.25%)、乙二胺四乙酸、柠檬酸或洗必泰。治疗的牙齿类型包括臼齿和前牙。所有研究都使用 10# K 锉进行根尖通畅,并使用各种手工和镍钛器械进行根管预备。一般来说,通过保持通畅,术后疼痛会略有减轻。这在术后 24 小时(OR=1.69,P=0.002)、1 天(MD=-1.69,P=0.03)和 2 天(MD=-0.85,P=0.04)的初期表现明显,但在 7 天监测期的剩余时间内变得不明显。组间镇痛药使用量无明显差异(OR = 0.82,P = 0.42)。研究根据质量分为三组:四项高质量,偏倚风险低;三项中等质量,存在一些问题;五项低质量,偏倚风险高。证据质量参差不齐;第 1 天和第 2 天的疼痛评分质量较低,12 小时和第 3-6 天的评分质量很低。异质性和不精确性较高,尤其是在疼痛测量和镇痛剂使用方面:荟萃分析表明,在术后初期,根尖通畅可显著减轻术后疼痛。然而,由于异质性较高且证据质量参差不齐,因此应谨慎解读研究结果。鉴于根尖通畅被认为是实现牙髓治疗生物学目标的理想方式,因此它似乎也能减少术后疼痛这一事实有助于使患者报告的结果测量与传统的成功测量相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does achieving apical patency increase postoperative pain during endodontics?

Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature up to May 2023. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis.

Study selection: Two authors screened databases to identify suitable studies, with a third investigator resolving disagreements. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving individuals without systemic diseases, who underwent root canal treatment in a permanent tooth with or without apical patency. Outcomes included pain, number of patients with pain and analgesic use. Exclusion criteria included patients who had undergone tooth extraction, incomplete data reports and studies which were not RCTs. There were no limits on publication language. A search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature from Google Scholar, ProQuest, OpenAire, and BASE identified 92 articles until May 2023. After removing 42 duplicates, 50 article full texts were assessed. Ultimately, 12 studies were included, seven of which were new relative to previous systematic reviews.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were analysed using RevMan 5.4 software. Dichotomous categorical data were analysed through the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with the inverse variance method used for continuous data. Following assessment of heterogeneity with the χ2 test, fixed- or random- effects modeling was used. Pain scores were reported within one week by ten studies, but three were excluded from meta-analysis due to methodological issues.

Results: Studies involving participants aged 14-65 years, with pulp necrosis, apical periodontitis, or pulpitis, were included for analysis. Irrigation solutions varied from saline to sodium hypochlorite (2.25-5.25%), EDTA, citric acid, or chlorhexidine. Types of teeth treated included molars and anterior teeth. All studies used a 10# K-file for apical patency and various hand and nickel-titanium instruments for canal preparation. Generally, there was slightly reduced post-operative pain reported through the maintenance of patency. This was evident in the initial post-operative period of 24 h (OR = 1.69, P = 0.002), 1-day (MD = -1.69, P = 0.03) and 2-days (MD = -0.85, P = 0.04), but became non-significant over the remainder of the 7-day monitoring period. There was no significant difference in analgesic use between groups (OR = 0.82, P = 0.42). Studies were classified into three groups based on quality: four high quality with low risk of bias; three moderate quality with some concerns; and five low quality with high risk of bias. Evidence quality varied; pain scores on days 1 and 2 were of low quality, with very low quality for 12 h and days 3-6. High heterogeneity and imprecision were noted, especially in pain measurements and analgesic use.

Conclusions: The meta-analysis indicates that during the initial post-operative period, apical patency significantly reduces postoperative pain. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously due to high heterogeneity and variable evidence quality. Given that apical patency is seen as desirable for achieving the biological aims of endodontic treatment, the fact that it also appears to reduce post-operative pain helps to align patient reported outcome measures with traditional measures indicating success.

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
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
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