DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Trip Database, Web of Science and Open Grey databases were conducted from their inception until November 2018 with no language restriction. Hand searching of most likely relevant journals was performed. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Studies that compared pre-clinical endodontic training using extracted teeth and artificial teeth were included.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of included studies was appraised by Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. The findings were tabulated and summarized according to their outcomes with distinct narrative syntheses.
RESULTS: Five studies were included. The component studies included 359 operators in total, mainly consisting of undergraduate students (97%, n = 349) and 10 endodontists (3%). Forty-seven per cent (n = 170) operated on artificial teeth only, whilst 19% (n = 67) worked primarily on extracted teeth, with the final treatment outcome being evaluated by independent observers using objective criteria. Operators in two studies (34%, n = 122) used both artificial teeth and ET and compared their experiences in surveys. Regarding technical outcomes, no significant differences between training with artificial teeth and extracted teeth were found, but the performance tended to be better in artificial teeth than extracted teeth. Operators trained solely on artificial teeth appeared to be adequately educated for subsequent root canal treatment (RCT) in the clinical setting.
LIMITATIONS: Due to the scarcity of research on the topic overall, and the methodological variation between the studies, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis (meta-analysis).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Based on the available evidence, the use of artificial teeth for pre-clinical endodontic training achieved similar educational outcomes compared to extracted teeth. However, the experiences reported by the operators diverged. Further studies assessing other artificial teeth available in the market testing other RCT procedures are necessary.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in 3 electronic databases for articles published before August 2018. Randomized clinical trials published in English that compared PP between machine-assisted agitation and syringe irrigation with needles as part of nonsurgical root canal treatment were included. Two authors were independently involved in the article selection process, data extraction, and assessment of the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. The pooled effect estimates of the standardized mean difference (SMD) between machine-assisted agitation and syringe irrigation with needle was calculated by a random effects-modeled meta-analysis. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.
RESULTS: Six studies were included for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using 3 studies and showed that machine-assisted agitation resulted in less PP compared with syringe irrigation with needle at 24 hours (SMD = -0.73; 95% confidence interval, -1.04 to -0.42; I2 = 30.6%) and 48 hours (SMD = -0.60; 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.35; I2 = 0%). The quality of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations for the PP outcomes (24 hours and 48 hours) was graded as "moderate" quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Machine-assisted agitation reduced PP compared with syringe irrigation with needles in nonsurgical root canal treatment. Future clinical trials are needed to support the result of this review.