Abstract
Design Systematic review.
Data sources PubMed and Scopus databases were searched independently by two authors from inception to July 2018 using keywords and index words combined using Boolean terms. Articles were restricted to English and were not excluded based on study design. Conference proceedings, grey literature, letters and commentaries were excluded.
Data extraction and synthesis Demographic data (age, sex), study design, pulpal and periapical pre-treatment diagnosis, pre-operative radiographic findings, intra-operative disinfection protocol, intracanal coronal barrier, duration of follow-up, and clinical and/or radiographic and/or histological outcomes after completion of single-visit regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) on non-vital, immature permanent teeth. Quality of included case reports were assessed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials was done using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The quality of the animal study was assessed by the SYRCLE risk of bias assessment tool.
Results A total of five case reports, one randomised controlled trial and one animal study were included in the final analysis. All case reports were rated as high quality while the randomised controlled trial was rated moderate-to-low risk of bias. Case reports and the animal study favoured single-visit REPs, while the results from the randomised trial reported only 50% success. Within this limited pool of studies, there were differences in aetiology, location, disinfection protocol (different concentrations of NaOCl and EDTA, saline, chlorhexidine), follow-up time intervals and subjective reporting of radiographic healing, making syntheses challenging.
Conclusions Single-visit REPs may offer benefits of reduced treatment time and visits compared to conventional two-visit REPs.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 4 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $64.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nissen T, Wynn R. The clinical case report: a review of its merits and limitations. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 264.
Cooper H. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step by step approach. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010.
Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 2016; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i3507.
Kahler B, Rossi-Fedele G, Chugal N, Lin L M. An Evidence-based Review of the Efficacy of Treatment Approaches for Immature Permanent Teeth with Pulp Necrosis. J Endod 2017; 43: 1052-1057.
Stewart, L, Moher, D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 7.
Pound P, Bracken M B. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g3387.
Thereza-Bussolaro C, Galván J G, Pachêco-Pereira C, Flores-Mir C. Maxillary osteotomy complications in piezoelectric surgery compared to conventional surgical techniques: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 48: 720-731.
Chambers D, Rodgers M, Woolacott N. Not only randomized controlled trials, but also case series should be considered in systematic reviews of rapidly developing technologies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.010.
Ioannidis J P. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016; 94: 485-514.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Madurantakam, P. Are single-visit regenerative endodontic procedures successful in treating non-vital, immature young permanent teeth?. Evid Based Dent 21, 136–137 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-020-0142-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-020-0142-2