METHODS: Studies were identified from 4 electronic databases up to June 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic success rate of GG, VA, and MI NBs with IANBs in mandibular premolars and molars with irreversible pulpitis were included. The quality of selected RCTs was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and random errors were evaluated by TSA. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Five RCTs were included; 2 of them were classified as low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in the anesthesia success rate compared between GG and IA NBs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.48; I2 = 0%). Similarly, no difference was evident between MINB and IANB (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36; I2 = 0%). Overall, the cumulative success rates for the 3 anesthetic techniques were low. TSA showed a lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analysis between GG NB and IANB. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach evaluation showed that the evidence was of moderate quality for GG NB and IANB compared with low quality for MI and IA NBs. Because only 1 study was available comparing VA NB and IANB, a meta-analysis was not performed. The adverse effect associated with MI NB was swelling, whereas it was prolonged numbness for IANB.
CONCLUSIONS: GG NB and IANB showed similar anesthetic efficacy compared with IANB in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. However, the success rates for each technique indicate the need for supplemental anesthesia. Further well-designed RCTs evaluating different anesthetic techniques with and without supplemental injection are required to provide stronger evidence.
METHODS: An electronic search in PubMed and major endodontic journals was conducted using appropriate key words to identify investigations that examined the effectiveness of obturation material removal assessed by micro-computed tomography.
RESULTS: Among 345 studies, 22 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Seven studies compared hand instrumentation with Nickel-Titanium rotary or reciprocating systems. Three studies investigated rotary systems, and another three studies explored reciprocation. Eight studies compared rotary systems and reciprocation in removing filling materials from the root canal system. Other factors, such as the role of solvents and irrigant agitation, were discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: The application of different instrumentation protocols can effectively, but not completely, remove the filling materials from the root canal system. Only hand instrumentation was not associated with iatrogenic errors. Reciprocating and rotary systems exhibited similar abilities in removing root filling material. Retreatment files performed similarly to conventional ones. Solvents enhanced penetration of files but hindered cleaning of the root canal. The role of irrigant agitation was determined as controversial.
METHODS: This systematic review was undertaken following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42019127021). A comprehensive literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers using a selected search strategy in 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) until January 28, 2019. A further search was performed manually in endodontic journals. Studies investigating or comparing at least 1 shaping property resulting from root canal instrumentation with a glide path or preflaring in human extracted teeth or clinical studies were included.
RESULTS: The literature shows that the definition of glide path and preflaring procedures remains controversial, which requires an elaboration in the American Association of Endodontists' Glossary of Endodontic Terms. After the removal of irrelevant and duplicated articles, 98 articles were included. The impact of glide path preparation and preflaring on working length determination, apical file size determination, canal transportation, separation of endodontic files, shaping time, dentinal microcrack formation, and extrusion of debris was discussed. Because of heterogeneity among the included studies, quantitative synthesis was not performed for most of the parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based guideline is needed to define and correlate the basic concepts and current applications of each step of contemporary advancements in root canal instruments. Glide path preparation reduces the risk of debris extrusion, has no influence on the incidence of dentinal crack formation, and improves the preservation of the original canal anatomy. The creation of a glide path may have no impact on Reciproc files (VDW, Munich, Germany) in reaching the full working length. Preflaring increases the accuracy of working length determination. Further randomized clinical trials are required to evaluate the effect of a glide path and preflaring on root canal treatment outcomes.
METHODS: A review of clinical cases reporting NaOCl accidents was conducted in June 2016 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist; it combined an electronic search of the PubMed database and an extensive manual search.
RESULTS: Forty full-text articles corresponding to 52 case reports published between 1974 and 2015 were selected. Four main categories of data were highlighted: general and clinical information, clinical signs and symptoms of NaOCl extrusions, management of NaOCl extrusions, and healing and prognosis. Overall, up to now, clinical cases were reported in a very unsystematic manner, and some relevant information was missing.
CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the potential causes, management, and prognosis of NaOCl accidents requires a standardization of reported data; this study proposes a template that can fulfill this objective.