Daniel A Decurcio1, Giampiero Rossi-Fedele2, Carlos Estrela1, Shaju J Pulikkotil3, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu3. 1. School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil. 2. Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: giampiero.rossi-fedele@adelaide.edu.au. 3. Division of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether machine-assisted agitation resulted in less postoperative pain (PP) compared with syringe irrigation with needle alone in adult patients undergoing root canal treatment. 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.
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether machine-assisted agitation resulted in less postoperative pain (PP) compared with syringe irrigation with needle alone in adult patients undergoing root canal treatment. 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.
Authors: Thaís Christina Cunha; Felipe de Souza Matos; Luiz Renato Paranhos; Ítalo de Macedo Bernardino; Camilla Christian Gomes Moura Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 2.757