A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth
Background Use of rotary instruments in the root canals of permanent teeth is well known; however, there are no evidence‐based recommendations on the effectiveness of rotary canal instrumentation techniques over manual instrumentation techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth. Aim To a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International endodontic journal 2020-03, Vol.53 (3), p.333-353 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 353 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 333 |
| container_title | International endodontic journal |
| container_volume | 53 |
| creator | Manchanda, S. Sardana, D. Yiu, C. K. Y. |
| description | Background
Use of rotary instruments in the root canals of permanent teeth is well known; however, there are no evidence‐based recommendations on the effectiveness of rotary canal instrumentation techniques over manual instrumentation techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Aim
To appraise the current literature on the effectiveness of rotary canal preparation techniques compared to manual techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Data sources
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (1 January 1991 to 3 January 2019).
Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions
Population: Children with primary teeth; Intervention: Rotary canal instrumentation; Control: Manual canal instrumentation; Outcomes: Success rates (clinical and/or radiographic), quality of root filling, instrumentation and root filling time, postoperative pain, cleaning effectiveness.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods
Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 was used to ascertain the validity across five domains. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference for continuous variables were used as summary measures. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE‐pro software.
Results
A total of 13 trials were selected of 2471 records after screening of the databases. The RR of clinical success in rotary versus manual canal preparation technique was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.91–1.12; P = 0.913) at 6 months. The RR of radiographic success in rotary versus manual techniques was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.805) at 6 months. The quality of root filling was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.062). The weighted mean difference of instrumentation time and canal filling time was significantly less with rotary techniques (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/iej.13233 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2301889448</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2301889448</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-d91708592f8554f2a4fd861aa89ffd92c350454eaddda491f4ca6fddf276f6283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1uEzEUhS0EoqGw4AWQJTYgNK1_J55lFRUoqsQG1iPXviaOZuxgexqFFY_Am_BOPAkeErpAAuGNLes75_4chJ5SckbrOfewOaOccX4PLShvZcNkR--jBaGCN0wpeYIe5bwhhEjC6UN0wqlUyypYoO8XOO9zgVEXb3CCWw87rIPFIxT94-s3HfSwzz7j6HCq_3H0X8BiM_jgjR5wSV4PGZs4bnXy4RNOsei0x2YWYh9ySdMIoVT7GHABsw7-8wQZ73xZ41GH6d-YD3ib_DhbFoCyfoweuFoQnhzvU_Tx9eWH1dvm-v2bq9XFdWO4UryxHV0SJTvmlJTCMS2cVS3VWnXO2Y4ZLomQArS1VouOOmF066x1bNm6lil-il4cfLcpzo2UfvTZwDDoAHHKPeOEKtUJMaPP_0A3cUp1_JmSvC6dia5SLw-USTHnBK4_ztVT0s8p9jXF_leKlX12dJxuRrB35O_YKqAOwA5uosvGQzBwh9WcRada0rH6InTlD2tdxSmUKn31_9JKnx9pP8D-7y33V5fvDr3_BOcXzU0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2353005249</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /></source><creator>Manchanda, S. ; Sardana, D. ; Yiu, C. K. Y.</creator><creatorcontrib>Manchanda, S. ; Sardana, D. ; Yiu, C. K. Y.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Use of rotary instruments in the root canals of permanent teeth is well known; however, there are no evidence‐based recommendations on the effectiveness of rotary canal instrumentation techniques over manual instrumentation techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Aim
To appraise the current literature on the effectiveness of rotary canal preparation techniques compared to manual techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Data sources
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (1 January 1991 to 3 January 2019).
Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions
Population: Children with primary teeth; Intervention: Rotary canal instrumentation; Control: Manual canal instrumentation; Outcomes: Success rates (clinical and/or radiographic), quality of root filling, instrumentation and root filling time, postoperative pain, cleaning effectiveness.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods
Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 was used to ascertain the validity across five domains. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference for continuous variables were used as summary measures. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE‐pro software.
Results
A total of 13 trials were selected of 2471 records after screening of the databases. The RR of clinical success in rotary versus manual canal preparation technique was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.91–1.12; P = 0.913) at 6 months. The RR of radiographic success in rotary versus manual techniques was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.805) at 6 months. The quality of root filling was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.062). The weighted mean difference of instrumentation time and canal filling time was significantly less with rotary techniques (P < 0.001); however, postoperative pain was non‐significant across both techniques at 12, 24 and 72 h but significantly less with rotary techniques at 6 h (P < 0.001) and 48 h (P = 0.023).
Limitations
Inclusion of only English literature.
Conclusions and implications of key findings
Rotary canal instrumentation had a similar clinical and radiographic success rate, less postoperative pain (at 6 and 48 h), and took less instrumentation time compared to manual instrumentation techniques (moderate level of evidence).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0143-2885</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2591</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/iej.13233</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31587323</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>HOBOKEN: Wiley</publisher><subject>Child ; Clinical trials ; Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine ; Endodontics ; Humans ; Life Sciences & Biomedicine ; Meta-analysis ; Pain ; Pediatrics ; primary tooth ; pulpectomy ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Root Canal Obturation ; Root Canal Preparation ; Root Canal Therapy ; root canal treatment ; Root canals ; Science & Technology ; Surgical techniques ; Systematic review ; Tooth, Deciduous</subject><ispartof>International endodontic journal, 2020-03, Vol.53 (3), p.333-353</ispartof><rights>2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>26</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000498609200001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-d91708592f8554f2a4fd861aa89ffd92c350454eaddda491f4ca6fddf276f6283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-d91708592f8554f2a4fd861aa89ffd92c350454eaddda491f4ca6fddf276f6283</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4090-6205 ; 0000-0001-8895-392X ; 0000-0002-6486-5893</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fiej.13233$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fiej.13233$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,28253,45579,45580</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31587323$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Manchanda, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sardana, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yiu, C. K. Y.</creatorcontrib><title>A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth</title><title>International endodontic journal</title><addtitle>INT ENDOD J</addtitle><addtitle>Int Endod J</addtitle><description>Background
Use of rotary instruments in the root canals of permanent teeth is well known; however, there are no evidence‐based recommendations on the effectiveness of rotary canal instrumentation techniques over manual instrumentation techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Aim
To appraise the current literature on the effectiveness of rotary canal preparation techniques compared to manual techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Data sources
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (1 January 1991 to 3 January 2019).
Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions
Population: Children with primary teeth; Intervention: Rotary canal instrumentation; Control: Manual canal instrumentation; Outcomes: Success rates (clinical and/or radiographic), quality of root filling, instrumentation and root filling time, postoperative pain, cleaning effectiveness.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods
Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 was used to ascertain the validity across five domains. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference for continuous variables were used as summary measures. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE‐pro software.
Results
A total of 13 trials were selected of 2471 records after screening of the databases. The RR of clinical success in rotary versus manual canal preparation technique was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.91–1.12; P = 0.913) at 6 months. The RR of radiographic success in rotary versus manual techniques was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.805) at 6 months. The quality of root filling was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.062). The weighted mean difference of instrumentation time and canal filling time was significantly less with rotary techniques (P < 0.001); however, postoperative pain was non‐significant across both techniques at 12, 24 and 72 h but significantly less with rotary techniques at 6 h (P < 0.001) and 48 h (P = 0.023).
Limitations
Inclusion of only English literature.
Conclusions and implications of key findings
Rotary canal instrumentation had a similar clinical and radiographic success rate, less postoperative pain (at 6 and 48 h), and took less instrumentation time compared to manual instrumentation techniques (moderate level of evidence).</description><subject>Child</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine</subject><subject>Endodontics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>primary tooth</subject><subject>pulpectomy</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Root Canal Obturation</subject><subject>Root Canal Preparation</subject><subject>Root Canal Therapy</subject><subject>root canal treatment</subject><subject>Root canals</subject><subject>Science & Technology</subject><subject>Surgical techniques</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Tooth, Deciduous</subject><issn>0143-2885</issn><issn>1365-2591</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AOWDO</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1uEzEUhS0EoqGw4AWQJTYgNK1_J55lFRUoqsQG1iPXviaOZuxgexqFFY_Am_BOPAkeErpAAuGNLes75_4chJ5SckbrOfewOaOccX4PLShvZcNkR--jBaGCN0wpeYIe5bwhhEjC6UN0wqlUyypYoO8XOO9zgVEXb3CCWw87rIPFIxT94-s3HfSwzz7j6HCq_3H0X8BiM_jgjR5wSV4PGZs4bnXy4RNOsei0x2YWYh9ySdMIoVT7GHABsw7-8wQZ73xZ41GH6d-YD3ib_DhbFoCyfoweuFoQnhzvU_Tx9eWH1dvm-v2bq9XFdWO4UryxHV0SJTvmlJTCMS2cVS3VWnXO2Y4ZLomQArS1VouOOmF066x1bNm6lil-il4cfLcpzo2UfvTZwDDoAHHKPeOEKtUJMaPP_0A3cUp1_JmSvC6dia5SLw-USTHnBK4_ztVT0s8p9jXF_leKlX12dJxuRrB35O_YKqAOwA5uosvGQzBwh9WcRada0rH6InTlD2tdxSmUKn31_9JKnx9pP8D-7y33V5fvDr3_BOcXzU0</recordid><startdate>202003</startdate><enddate>202003</enddate><creator>Manchanda, S.</creator><creator>Sardana, D.</creator><creator>Yiu, C. K. Y.</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AOWDO</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4090-6205</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8895-392X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6486-5893</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202003</creationdate><title>A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth</title><author>Manchanda, S. ; Sardana, D. ; Yiu, C. K. Y.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-d91708592f8554f2a4fd861aa89ffd92c350454eaddda491f4ca6fddf276f6283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Child</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine</topic><topic>Endodontics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>primary tooth</topic><topic>pulpectomy</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Root Canal Obturation</topic><topic>Root Canal Preparation</topic><topic>Root Canal Therapy</topic><topic>root canal treatment</topic><topic>Root canals</topic><topic>Science & Technology</topic><topic>Surgical techniques</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Tooth, Deciduous</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Manchanda, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sardana, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yiu, C. K. Y.</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International endodontic journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Manchanda, S.</au><au>Sardana, D.</au><au>Yiu, C. K. Y.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth</atitle><jtitle>International endodontic journal</jtitle><stitle>INT ENDOD J</stitle><addtitle>Int Endod J</addtitle><date>2020-03</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>333</spage><epage>353</epage><pages>333-353</pages><issn>0143-2885</issn><eissn>1365-2591</eissn><abstract>Background
Use of rotary instruments in the root canals of permanent teeth is well known; however, there are no evidence‐based recommendations on the effectiveness of rotary canal instrumentation techniques over manual instrumentation techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Aim
To appraise the current literature on the effectiveness of rotary canal preparation techniques compared to manual techniques during root canal treatment in primary teeth.
Data sources
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (1 January 1991 to 3 January 2019).
Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions
Population: Children with primary teeth; Intervention: Rotary canal instrumentation; Control: Manual canal instrumentation; Outcomes: Success rates (clinical and/or radiographic), quality of root filling, instrumentation and root filling time, postoperative pain, cleaning effectiveness.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods
Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 was used to ascertain the validity across five domains. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference for continuous variables were used as summary measures. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE‐pro software.
Results
A total of 13 trials were selected of 2471 records after screening of the databases. The RR of clinical success in rotary versus manual canal preparation technique was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.91–1.12; P = 0.913) at 6 months. The RR of radiographic success in rotary versus manual techniques was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.805) at 6 months. The quality of root filling was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.062). The weighted mean difference of instrumentation time and canal filling time was significantly less with rotary techniques (P < 0.001); however, postoperative pain was non‐significant across both techniques at 12, 24 and 72 h but significantly less with rotary techniques at 6 h (P < 0.001) and 48 h (P = 0.023).
Limitations
Inclusion of only English literature.
Conclusions and implications of key findings
Rotary canal instrumentation had a similar clinical and radiographic success rate, less postoperative pain (at 6 and 48 h), and took less instrumentation time compared to manual instrumentation techniques (moderate level of evidence).</abstract><cop>HOBOKEN</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>31587323</pmid><doi>10.1111/iej.13233</doi><tpages>21</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4090-6205</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8895-392X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6486-5893</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0143-2885 |
| ispartof | International endodontic journal, 2020-03, Vol.53 (3), p.333-353 |
| issn | 0143-2885 1365-2591 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2301889448 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /> |
| subjects | Child Clinical trials Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine Endodontics Humans Life Sciences & Biomedicine Meta-analysis Pain Pediatrics primary tooth pulpectomy Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Root Canal Obturation Root Canal Preparation Root Canal Therapy root canal treatment Root canals Science & Technology Surgical techniques Systematic review Tooth, Deciduous |
| title | A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T23%3A57%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta%E2%80%90analysis%20of%20randomized%20clinical%20trials%20comparing%20rotary%20canal%20instrumentation%20techniques%20with%20manual%20instrumentation%20techniques%20in%20primary%20teeth&rft.jtitle=International%20endodontic%20journal&rft.au=Manchanda,%20S.&rft.date=2020-03&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=333&rft.epage=353&rft.pages=333-353&rft.issn=0143-2885&rft.eissn=1365-2591&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/iej.13233&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2301889448%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2353005249&rft_id=info:pmid/31587323&rfr_iscdi=true |