Sealapex与AH-plus封口剂对粪肠球菌抗菌效果的比较:体外研究的系统综述

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
A. Parolia, Despoina Nikolopoulou, B. Lim, S. Kanagasingam
{"title":"Sealapex与AH-plus封口剂对粪肠球菌抗菌效果的比较:体外研究的系统综述","authors":"A. Parolia, Despoina Nikolopoulou, B. Lim, S. Kanagasingam","doi":"10.32067/GIE.2020.34.02.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To summarize the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the antibacterial effectiveness of Sealapex and AH-plus sealer against E. faecalis. Methodology: The research question was developed using the PICO methodology and studies were identified from three electronic databases in Medline, Scopus, and EBSCOhost (Dentistry; Oral Sciences Source) since inception up to November 2019. The title and abstract of the selected articles were independently reviewed by two reviewers based on the specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted the data using the data extraction form. The quality of selected in vitro studies was appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.Results: Sixteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Due to the lack of homogeneity in the data, meta-analysis could not be conducted. The quality of the evidence was \"low\", since every study had at least three questions related to high risk of bias. Different laboratory tests and protocols were used, their results were contradicting even for studies using the same laboratory tests and quality of evidence was found to be low. No study provided strong evidence, twelve studies provided moderate evidence, three studies provided limited evidence and one study provided conflicting evidence. The research question could not be meaningfully addressed. Conclusions: No difference was observed in the antimicrobial efficacy of Sealapex and AH-plus root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis. There was an identification of poor quality relevant studies with contradicting results that indicates the need for development of standardized protocols for future in vitro studies.","PeriodicalId":42221,"journal":{"name":"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of antibacterial effectiveness between Sealapex and AH-plus sealer against Enterococcus faecalis: a systematic review of in vitro studies\",\"authors\":\"A. Parolia, Despoina Nikolopoulou, B. Lim, S. Kanagasingam\",\"doi\":\"10.32067/GIE.2020.34.02.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: To summarize the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the antibacterial effectiveness of Sealapex and AH-plus sealer against E. faecalis. Methodology: The research question was developed using the PICO methodology and studies were identified from three electronic databases in Medline, Scopus, and EBSCOhost (Dentistry; Oral Sciences Source) since inception up to November 2019. The title and abstract of the selected articles were independently reviewed by two reviewers based on the specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted the data using the data extraction form. The quality of selected in vitro studies was appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.Results: Sixteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Due to the lack of homogeneity in the data, meta-analysis could not be conducted. The quality of the evidence was \\\"low\\\", since every study had at least three questions related to high risk of bias. Different laboratory tests and protocols were used, their results were contradicting even for studies using the same laboratory tests and quality of evidence was found to be low. No study provided strong evidence, twelve studies provided moderate evidence, three studies provided limited evidence and one study provided conflicting evidence. The research question could not be meaningfully addressed. Conclusions: No difference was observed in the antimicrobial efficacy of Sealapex and AH-plus root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis. There was an identification of poor quality relevant studies with contradicting results that indicates the need for development of standardized protocols for future in vitro studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32067/GIE.2020.34.02.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32067/GIE.2020.34.02.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:总结比较Sealapex与AH-plus封口剂对粪肠球菌抑菌效果的体外研究结果。方法学:研究问题采用PICO方法学,研究从Medline、Scopus和EBSCOhost (Dentistry;《口腔科学》(来源)自成立至2019年11月。所选文章的标题和摘要由两名审稿人根据指定的纳入和排除标准独立审查,并使用数据提取表提取数据。使用修订后的Cochrane偏倚风险工具评价所选体外研究的质量。结果:16项研究符合纳入标准,纳入本系统评价。由于数据缺乏同质性,无法进行meta分析。证据的质量是“低”的,因为每项研究至少有三个问题与高偏倚风险相关。使用了不同的实验室测试和方案,即使使用相同的实验室测试,其结果也相互矛盾,而且发现证据的质量很低。没有研究提供了强有力的证据,12项研究提供了中等程度的证据,3项研究提供了有限的证据,1项研究提供了相互矛盾的证据。研究问题无法得到有意义的解决。结论:Sealapex根管封闭剂与AH-plus根管封闭剂对粪肠球菌的抗菌效果无显著差异。发现了质量较差的相关研究,结果相互矛盾,这表明需要为未来的体外研究制定标准化的方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of antibacterial effectiveness between Sealapex and AH-plus sealer against Enterococcus faecalis: a systematic review of in vitro studies
Aim: To summarize the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the antibacterial effectiveness of Sealapex and AH-plus sealer against E. faecalis. Methodology: The research question was developed using the PICO methodology and studies were identified from three electronic databases in Medline, Scopus, and EBSCOhost (Dentistry; Oral Sciences Source) since inception up to November 2019. The title and abstract of the selected articles were independently reviewed by two reviewers based on the specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted the data using the data extraction form. The quality of selected in vitro studies was appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.Results: Sixteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Due to the lack of homogeneity in the data, meta-analysis could not be conducted. The quality of the evidence was "low", since every study had at least three questions related to high risk of bias. Different laboratory tests and protocols were used, their results were contradicting even for studies using the same laboratory tests and quality of evidence was found to be low. No study provided strong evidence, twelve studies provided moderate evidence, three studies provided limited evidence and one study provided conflicting evidence. The research question could not be meaningfully addressed. Conclusions: No difference was observed in the antimicrobial efficacy of Sealapex and AH-plus root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis. There was an identification of poor quality relevant studies with contradicting results that indicates the need for development of standardized protocols for future in vitro studies.
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
Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia
Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia was founded in 1987 and is the official journal of the Italian Society of Endodontics (SIE). It is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles on clinical research and/or clinical methodology, case reports related to Endodontics. The Journal evaluates also contributes in restorative dentistry, dental traumatology, experimental pathophysiology, pharmacology and microbiology dealing with Endodontics.
×
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