David Levenson1. 1. NYU College of Dentistry, New York, USA.
Abstract
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and PubMed databases were searched together with hand-searches of a range of journals (Journal of Endodontics, International Endodontic Journal, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery). STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies in several languages (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish) with a minimum follow-up of six months, evaluated using clinical and radiographic examination were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Assessment and data abstraction were carried out independently. Weighted pooled success rates and relative risk assessment between TRS and EMS were calculated and a meta-analysis carried out using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. Weighted pooled success rates calculated from extracted raw data showed a 59% positive outcome for TRS (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.6308) and 94% for EMS (95% confidence interval, 0.8889-0.9816). This difference was statistically significant (P < .0005). The relative risk ratio showed that the probability of success for EMS was 1.58 times the probability of success for TRS. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the meta-analysis presented, the probability of success for EMS proved significantly greater than the probability of success for TRS.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and PubMed databases were searched together with hand-searches of a range of journals (Journal of Endodontics, International Endodontic Journal, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery). STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies in several languages (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish) with a minimum follow-up of six months, evaluated using clinical and radiographic examination were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Assessment and data abstraction were carried out independently. Weighted pooled success rates and relative risk assessment between TRS and EMS were calculated and a meta-analysis carried out using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. Weighted pooled success rates calculated from extracted raw data showed a 59% positive outcome for TRS (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.6308) and 94% for EMS (95% confidence interval, 0.8889-0.9816). This difference was statistically significant (P < .0005). The relative risk ratio showed that the probability of success for EMS was 1.58 times the probability of success for TRS. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the meta-analysis presented, the probability of success for EMS proved significantly greater than the probability of success for TRS.