再生牙髓学与传统根管治疗的比较结果和成功率:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of International Medical Research Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-26 DOI:10.1177/03000605251379243
Asiya Mujawar, Varsha Pandit, Sumaiyya Shaikh, Bilal Shaikh, Noura A Alessa, Mohammed Abdul Kader, Mohammed Alqarni, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari
{"title":"再生牙髓学与传统根管治疗的比较结果和成功率:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Asiya Mujawar, Varsha Pandit, Sumaiyya Shaikh, Bilal Shaikh, Noura A Alessa, Mohammed Abdul Kader, Mohammed Alqarni, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari","doi":"10.1177/03000605251379243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures compared with conventional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with periapical lesions.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that were included in the study compared regenerative endodontic procedures with traditional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan Web software, using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with a random-effects model applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test.ResultsThe analysis included five studies encompassing diverse regenerative strategies. Overall, regenerative endodontic procedures demonstrated comparable or superior clinical and radiographic healing outcomes relative to conventional treatments. Notably, certain regenerative approaches showed greater potential for restoring pulp vitality and reducing early postoperative pain. However, the quality of evidence was moderate, constrained by small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, and blinding challenges.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that regenerative endodontic procedures are promising alternatives to conventional root canal treatment procedures for mature teeth with periapical lesions. Despite these encouraging findings, further high-quality, multicenter trials with standardized protocols and extended follow-up periods are necessary to confirm the results and establish the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of regenerative endodontics.</p>","PeriodicalId":16129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Medical Research","volume":"53 9","pages":"3000605251379243"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12475698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative outcomes and success rates of regenerative endodontics versus traditional root canal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Asiya Mujawar, Varsha Pandit, Sumaiyya Shaikh, Bilal Shaikh, Noura A Alessa, Mohammed Abdul Kader, Mohammed Alqarni, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03000605251379243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures compared with conventional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with periapical lesions.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that were included in the study compared regenerative endodontic procedures with traditional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan Web software, using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with a random-effects model applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test.ResultsThe analysis included five studies encompassing diverse regenerative strategies. Overall, regenerative endodontic procedures demonstrated comparable or superior clinical and radiographic healing outcomes relative to conventional treatments. Notably, certain regenerative approaches showed greater potential for restoring pulp vitality and reducing early postoperative pain. However, the quality of evidence was moderate, constrained by small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, and blinding challenges.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that regenerative endodontic procedures are promising alternatives to conventional root canal treatment procedures for mature teeth with periapical lesions. Despite these encouraging findings, further high-quality, multicenter trials with standardized protocols and extended follow-up periods are necessary to confirm the results and establish the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of regenerative endodontics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"53 9\",\"pages\":\"3000605251379243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12475698/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605251379243\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605251379243","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评价再生根管治疗与传统根管治疗在根尖周病变的成熟恒牙中的疗效。方法本系统评价和荟萃分析遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行。纳入研究的随机对照试验比较了再生根管治疗与传统根管治疗对不可逆牙髓炎的成熟恒牙的疗效。使用风险偏倚2工具进行质量评估,并使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。使用RevMan Web软件进行meta分析,二分类结果使用优势比,连续结果使用平均差异,采用随机效应模型。采用I2统计量评估异质性,采用漏斗图和Egger检验评估发表偏倚。结果该分析包括五项研究,包括不同的再生策略。总的来说,与传统治疗相比,再生牙髓治疗的临床和影像学愈合效果相当或更好。值得注意的是,某些再生入路显示出更大的恢复牙髓活力和减少术后早期疼痛的潜力。然而,受样本量小、方法异质性和盲法挑战的限制,证据的质量是中等的。结论:目前的证据表明再生根管治疗对于根尖周病变的成熟牙是一种有希望的替代方法。尽管有这些令人鼓舞的发现,但需要进一步的高质量、多中心试验、标准化方案和延长随访期来确认结果,并确定再生牙髓学的长期益处和成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative outcomes and success rates of regenerative endodontics versus traditional root canal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Comparative outcomes and success rates of regenerative endodontics versus traditional root canal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Comparative outcomes and success rates of regenerative endodontics versus traditional root canal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Comparative outcomes and success rates of regenerative endodontics versus traditional root canal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures compared with conventional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with periapical lesions.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that were included in the study compared regenerative endodontic procedures with traditional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan Web software, using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with a random-effects model applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test.ResultsThe analysis included five studies encompassing diverse regenerative strategies. Overall, regenerative endodontic procedures demonstrated comparable or superior clinical and radiographic healing outcomes relative to conventional treatments. Notably, certain regenerative approaches showed greater potential for restoring pulp vitality and reducing early postoperative pain. However, the quality of evidence was moderate, constrained by small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, and blinding challenges.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that regenerative endodontic procedures are promising alternatives to conventional root canal treatment procedures for mature teeth with periapical lesions. Despite these encouraging findings, further high-quality, multicenter trials with standardized protocols and extended follow-up periods are necessary to confirm the results and establish the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of regenerative endodontics.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: _Journal of International Medical Research_ is a leading international journal for rapid publication of original medical, pre-clinical and clinical research, reviews, preliminary and pilot studies on a page charge basis. As a service to authors, every article accepted by peer review will be given a full technical edit to make papers as accessible and readable to the international medical community as rapidly as possible. Once the technical edit queries have been answered to the satisfaction of the journal, the paper will be published and made available freely to everyone under a creative commons licence. Symposium proceedings, summaries of presentations or collections of medical, pre-clinical or clinical data on a specific topic are welcome for publication as supplements. Print ISSN: 0300-0605
×
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