METHODS: Fifteen intact, non-carious single-rooted teeth were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction. Visually, working length was determined by using a #15 K-file under stereomicroscope (×20). The effect of cellular phones on electronic working length (EWL) was determined under 2 experimental settings: (1) in a closed room with poor signal strength and (2) in a polyclinic set up with good signal strength and 5 conditions: (1) electronically, without cellular phone in room; (2) electronically, with cellular phone in physical contact with EAL; (3) electronically, with mobile phone in physical contact with EAL and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds; (4) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm from the EAL; and (5) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds. The EWL was measured 3 times per tooth under each condition. Stability of the readings was scored from 1 to 3: (1) good stability, (2) stable reading after 1 attempt, and (3) stable reading after 2 attempts. The data were compared by using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The EWL measurements were not influenced by the presence of cellular phone and could be determined under all experimental conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that mobile phones do not interfere with the EWL determination.
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: The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017071899). A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE and EBSCOhost databases until June 2017 with no language restriction. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of oral premedications, whether given alone or in combination, compared with other agents, placebo, or no treatment in adult patients before NSRCT for postoperative pain were included. Nonintervention studies, nonendodontic studies, animal studies, and reviews were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pair-wise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and quality of evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was performed.
RESULTS: Eleven studies comparing pharmacologic groups of medications were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, corticosteroids (prednisolone 30-40 mg) was ranked best for reducing postoperative pain (median difference [MD] = -18.14 [95% confidence interval (CI), -32.90 to -3.37] for the pain score at 6 hours; MD = -22.17 [95% CI, -36.03 to -8.32] for the pain score at 12 hours; and MD = -21.50 [95% CI, -37.95 to -5.06] for the pain score at 24 hours). However, the evidence was very low (6 and 24 hours) to moderate quality (12 hours). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were ranked least among the medications, and the quality of this evidence was very low. Additional analysis based on the chemical name showed that sulindac, ketorolac, and ibuprofen significantly reduced pain at 6 hours, whereas piroxicam and prednisolone significantly reduced the pain at 12 and 24 hours. Etodolac was found to be least effective in reducing pain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited and low-quality evidence, oral premedication with piroxicam or prednisolone could be recommended for controlling postoperative pain after NSRCT. However, more trials are warranted to confirm the results with a higher quality of evidence.
METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane Library databases. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. The analyses were performed on the clinical outcomes (ie, survival, healing, and root development) of the procedure.
RESULTS: Eleven articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, 6 were prospective cohort studies, and 2 were retrospective cohort studies. The pooled survival and healing rates were 97.3% and 93.0%, respectively. The pooled rates of root lengthening, root thickening, and apical closure were 77.3%, 90.6%, and 79.1%, respectively. However, if 20% radiographic changes were used as a cutoff point, there were only 16.1% root lengthening and 39.8% root thickening.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that RET yielded high survival and healing rates with a good root development rate. However, clinical meaningful root development after RET was unpredictable.
METHODS: A random sample of digital panoramic radiographs from the database of a dental hospital was evaluated. Two calibrated examiners (κ ≥ 0.89) assessed the technical quality of the root fillings and the radiographic periapical health status by using the periapical index. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out, followed by multilevel modeling by using tooth-level and patient-level predictors. Model fit information was obtained, and the findings of the best-fit model were reported.
RESULTS: A total of 6409 teeth were included in the analysis. The predicted probability of a tooth having AP was 0.42%. There was a statistically significant variability between patients (P
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: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles in the electronic databases from January 2000 to June 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles for eligibility and data extraction. SRs and MAs on interventional studies with a minimum of 2 therapeutic strategies in endodontics were included in this SR. Methodologic and reporting quality were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), respectively. The interobserver reliability was calculated using the Cohen kappa statistic. Statistical analysis with the level of significance at P
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.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using consecutive sampling. Each participant went through screening using the PUFA index, orthopantomography assessment using PAI, and comprehensive clinical examination to derive pulpal and apical diagnoses. The outcomes were dichotomized. Reliability was estimated using the Cohen kappa coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: A total of 165 participants were examined, 98.2% of whom had a decayed, missing, or filled tooth index >0. Of 4115 teeth assessed, 16.2% (n = 666) were diagnosed with pulpal disease and 7.9% (n = 325) with periapical disease. Interexaminer reliability for the PUFA index and PAI was 0.87 and 0.80, respectively. Intraexaminer reliability was 0.83 and 0.76 for the PUFA index and 0.75 and 0.72 for PAI. For pulpal diagnosis, the sensitivity of the PUFA index and PAI was 67.6% and 41.7%, respectively; the specificity of the PUFA index and PAI was 99.8% and 99.2%, respectively. For apical diagnosis, the sensitivity of the PUFA index and PAI was 87.7% and 75.4%, respectively; the specificity of the PUFA index and PAI was 95.4% and 98.4%, respectively. The PUFA index is statistically more accurate than PAI for pulpal diagnosis and apical diagnosis (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The PUFA index can be used in screening for pulpal and periapical diseases with some limitations.
METHODS: Fifty-six mature necrotic teeth with large periapical radiolucencies were distributed into 2 groups: group 1, REPs and group 2, CRCT (n = 28/group). Clinical and radiographic follow-up assessments were undertaken up to 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the independent samples t test and the chi-square test, and the level of significance was set at P = .05.
RESULTS: With a follow-up rate of about 73.4% of the total patients for 12 months, favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were found in 92.3% and 80% in REPs and CRCT groups, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). Half of the teeth treated with REPs responded to the electric pulp test.
CONCLUSIONS: Regenerative endodontic procedures have the potential to be used as a treatment option for mature teeth with large periapical radiolucencies.
METHODS: An electronic search was conducted on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science "All Databases" to identify and analyze the top 50 most frequently cited scientific articles. After ranking the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts, each article was then crossmatched with the citation counts in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed.
RESULTS: The citation counts of the 50 selected most cited articles ranged between 218 and 731 (Clarivate Analytics Web of Science). The years in which most top 50 articles were published were 2004 and 2008 (n = 5). Among 131 authors, the greatest contribution was made by M. Torabinejad (n = 14). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 38) with the greatest contributions from the School of Dentistry, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA (n = 15). Basic research-technology was the most frequent study design (n = 18). A negative, significant correlation occurred between citation density and publication age (correlation coefficient = -0.708, P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Several interesting differences were found between the main characteristics of the most cited articles and the most downloaded articles.
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.