cbct评估的初级根管治疗和再治疗的结果和预后因素:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Jf Brochado Martins, Ac Georgiou, P Diogo, R de Vries, V Freixo, Pj Palma, H Shemesh
{"title":"cbct评估的初级根管治疗和再治疗的结果和预后因素:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jf Brochado Martins, Ac Georgiou, P Diogo, R de Vries, V Freixo, Pj Palma, H Shemesh","doi":"10.1016/j.joen.2025.03.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Periapical radiographs (PR) have limitations in assessing endodontic treatment outcomes, which can be addressed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). This systematic review evaluates primary root canal treatment and retreatment outcomes using CBCT, focusing on periapical healing, success, and prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search (in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science) was performed up to March 8, 2024, in collaboration with a medical information specialist. Three reviewers independently performed article selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed, and evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analysis and meta-regression established pooled periapical healing and outcome rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and identify outcome predictors (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled periapical healing rate using 'loose criteria' was 87% (95% CI: 81-91%) for teeth and 84% (95% CI: 78-88%) for roots; using 'strict criteria' was 36% (95% CI: 22-53%) for teeth, and 44% (95% CI: 16-76%) for roots. The weighted pooled success rates for teeth were 85% (95% CI: 80-89%) under 'loose criteria' and 45% (95% CI: 31-59%) under 'strict' criteria. Meta-regression identified outcome predictors include number of visits, irrigant type, tooth type, operator experience, apical preparation size and taper, and obturation technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CBCT reveals lower success rates under strict criteria compared to loose criteria (36% vs. 88%). While CBCT offers greater diagnostic accuracy, its routine use for outcome evaluation may not be necessary, as it yields results similar to PR under loose criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":15703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CBCT-Assessed Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Primary Endodontic Treatment and Retreatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jf Brochado Martins, Ac Georgiou, P Diogo, R de Vries, V Freixo, Pj Palma, H Shemesh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joen.2025.03.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Periapical radiographs (PR) have limitations in assessing endodontic treatment outcomes, which can be addressed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). This systematic review evaluates primary root canal treatment and retreatment outcomes using CBCT, focusing on periapical healing, success, and prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search (in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science) was performed up to March 8, 2024, in collaboration with a medical information specialist. Three reviewers independently performed article selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed, and evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analysis and meta-regression established pooled periapical healing and outcome rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and identify outcome predictors (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled periapical healing rate using 'loose criteria' was 87% (95% CI: 81-91%) for teeth and 84% (95% CI: 78-88%) for roots; using 'strict criteria' was 36% (95% CI: 22-53%) for teeth, and 44% (95% CI: 16-76%) for roots. The weighted pooled success rates for teeth were 85% (95% CI: 80-89%) under 'loose criteria' and 45% (95% CI: 31-59%) under 'strict' criteria. Meta-regression identified outcome predictors include number of visits, irrigant type, tooth type, operator experience, apical preparation size and taper, and obturation technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CBCT reveals lower success rates under strict criteria compared to loose criteria (36% vs. 88%). While CBCT offers greater diagnostic accuracy, its routine use for outcome evaluation may not be necessary, as it yields results similar to PR under loose criteria.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15703,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of endodontics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-21\",\"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.2025.03.004\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2025.03.004","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

摘要

根尖周x线片(PR)在评估根管治疗结果方面有局限性,这可以通过锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)来解决。本系统综述评估了使用CBCT进行根管治疗和再治疗的结果,重点关注根尖周愈合、成功和预后因素。方法:与医学信息专家合作,检索截至2024年3月8日的文献(PubMed、Embase和Web of Science)。三位审稿人独立进行文章选择和数据提取。采用推荐分级、评估、发展和评价方法评估偏倚风险和证据质量。荟萃分析和荟萃回归建立了综合根尖周愈合和转归率、95%置信区间(ci),并确定了转归预测因子(P < 0.05)。结果:19项研究被纳入meta分析。使用“松散标准”的总根尖周愈合率为牙齿87% (95% CI: 81-91%),牙根84% (95% CI: 78-88%);使用“严格标准”的牙齿为36% (95% CI: 22-53%),牙根为44% (95% CI: 16-76%)。“宽松标准”下的加权总成功率为85% (95% CI: 80-89%),“严格标准”下的加权总成功率为45% (95% CI: 31-59%)。meta回归确定的结果预测因素包括就诊次数、冲洗剂类型、牙齿类型、操作人员经验、根尖准备大小和锥度以及封闭技术。结论:CBCT显示严格标准下的成功率低于宽松标准(36%对88%)。虽然CBCT提供了更高的诊断准确性,但它在结果评估中的常规使用可能没有必要,因为它在松散标准下产生的结果与PR相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CBCT-Assessed Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Primary Endodontic Treatment and Retreatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Periapical radiographs (PR) have limitations in assessing endodontic treatment outcomes, which can be addressed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). This systematic review evaluates primary root canal treatment and retreatment outcomes using CBCT, focusing on periapical healing, success, and prognostic factors.

Methods: A literature search (in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science) was performed up to March 8, 2024, in collaboration with a medical information specialist. Three reviewers independently performed article selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed, and evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analysis and meta-regression established pooled periapical healing and outcome rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and identify outcome predictors (P < .05).

Results: Nineteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled periapical healing rate using 'loose criteria' was 87% (95% CI: 81-91%) for teeth and 84% (95% CI: 78-88%) for roots; using 'strict criteria' was 36% (95% CI: 22-53%) for teeth, and 44% (95% CI: 16-76%) for roots. The weighted pooled success rates for teeth were 85% (95% CI: 80-89%) under 'loose criteria' and 45% (95% CI: 31-59%) under 'strict' criteria. Meta-regression identified outcome predictors include number of visits, irrigant type, tooth type, operator experience, apical preparation size and taper, and obturation technique.

Conclusion: CBCT reveals lower success rates under strict criteria compared to loose criteria (36% vs. 88%). While CBCT offers greater diagnostic accuracy, its routine use for outcome evaluation may not be necessary, as it yields results similar to PR under loose criteria.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信