Lucas Orbolato Chalub1, Gabriel Pereira Nunes1, Túlio Morandin Ferrisse2, Henrico Badaoui Strazzi-Sahyon3, Paulo Henrique Dos Santos3, João Eduardo Gomes-Filho1, Luciano Tavares Angelo Cintra1, Gustavo Sivieri-Araujo4. 1. Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil. 2. Oral Medicine, Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, Araraquara School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1680 Humaitá Street, Araraquara, SP, 14801-385, Brazil. 3. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil. 4. Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil. gustavo.sivieri@unesp.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) was to answer the question whether the use of ultrasonic irrigation (UI) results in less postoperative pain (PP) compared to conventional irrigation (CI). METHODS: A literature search was performed within the main scientific databases carried out until May 2021. The eligibility criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with the "META" package, the mean difference (MD) measure of effect was calculated, and the fixed effect model was applied with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Cochrane collaboration scale was used to assess risk of bias and the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for systematic review and four for meta-analysis. UI resulted in less PP in 3 of 5 periods, at 6 h (MD - 1.40 [CI - 2.38 to - 0.42] p = 0.0052), 24 h (MD - 0.73 [CI - 1.07 to - 0.39] p = 0.0001), and 48 h (MD - 0.36 [CI - 0.59 to - 0.13] p = 0.022). However, PP showed no significant differences between the groups at 72 h and 7 days (p > 0.05). A low risk of bias was observed for most domains, except allocation that was considered unclear. The certainty of evidence was classified as moderate (24 h, 48 h, and 7 days) and low (6 and 72 h). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this SRM, UI presented less occurrence of PP than CI. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to corroborate these findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: UI should be used by clinicians as it reduces postoperative pain in patients undergoing endodontic treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) was to answer the question whether the use of ultrasonic irrigation (UI) results in less postoperative pain (PP) compared to conventional irrigation (CI). METHODS: A literature search was performed within the main scientific databases carried out until May 2021. The eligibility criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with the "META" package, the mean difference (MD) measure of effect was calculated, and the fixed effect model was applied with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Cochrane collaboration scale was used to assess risk of bias and the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for systematic review and four for meta-analysis. UI resulted in less PP in 3 of 5 periods, at 6 h (MD - 1.40 [CI - 2.38 to - 0.42] p = 0.0052), 24 h (MD - 0.73 [CI - 1.07 to - 0.39] p = 0.0001), and 48 h (MD - 0.36 [CI - 0.59 to - 0.13] p = 0.022). However, PP showed no significant differences between the groups at 72 h and 7 days (p > 0.05). A low risk of bias was observed for most domains, except allocation that was considered unclear. The certainty of evidence was classified as moderate (24 h, 48 h, and 7 days) and low (6 and 72 h). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this SRM, UI presented less occurrence of PP than CI. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to corroborate these findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: UI should be used by clinicians as it reduces postoperative pain in patients undergoing endodontic treatment.
Authors: Tamer F Schmidt; Cleonice S Teixeira; Mara C S Felippe; Wilson T Felippe; David H Pashley; Eduardo A Bortoluzzi Journal: J Endod Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: M E H A A Mostafa; Y A I El-Shrief; W I O Anous; M W Hassan; F T A Salamah; R M El Boghdadi; M A A El-Bayoumi; R M Seyam; K G Abd-El-Kader; S A W Amin Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 5.264