| Literature DB >> 35645501 |
Nivedita Saxena1, Shivayogi M Hugar2, Sanjana P Soneta2, Riddhi S Joshi2, Pooja K Dialani1, Niraj Gokhale2.
Abstract
Background: In children with young permanent teeth, dental caries and traumatic injuries are the most common problems leading to pulp necrosis. Since, root development is completed in two to three years after eruption of the tooth into the oral cavity, loss of pulp vitality in young permanent tooth creates distinctive problems. In spite of exceeding availability of treatment procedures there is a need to search for a substantial procedure to treat young permanent teeth effectively. Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the treatment protocols in the management of pulpally involved young permanent teeth in children. Method: Systematic search was conducted on databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar among studies published from 1st January 2010 till 31st May 2020. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the review and were then assessed for quality with the help of predetermined criteria which categorized studies into high, medium, and low.Entities:
Keywords: Apexification; Apexogenesis; Regenerative endodontic procedures; young permanent teeth
Year: 2022 PMID: 35645501 PMCID: PMC9108820 DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Clin Pediatr Dent ISSN: 0974-7052
Fig. 1Flow diagram depicting the process of selection and exclusion of articles at each step
Table showing qualitative analysis of the studies selected for the systematic review
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Santha kumar M et al. | 2018 | In vivo | 7–12 years | 40 | PRF gel, PRF membrane | 6,12, and 18 months | PRF gel = 94.73% | PRF gel = 94.73% | PRF gel = 94.73% | PRF gel-94.73% |
|
| Torabi nejad M et al. | 2011 | In vivo | 11 years | 1 | Triple antibiotic paste + PRP | 6, 12 months | PRP = | PRP = | 100% | PRP–100% |
|
| Bezgin T et al. | 2015 | In vivo | 7–13 years | 22 | Blood clot, | 3, 6, 9, | PRP = | PRP = 100%, | PRP = | PRP–100% |
|
| Narang I et al. | 2015 | In vivo | < 20 years | 20 | Blood clot, | 6, 18 months | Blood clot = | Blood clot = | Blood clot = | PRF = 87.25% |
|
| Nagy MM et al. | 2014 | In vivo | 9–13 years | 36 | MTA + (blood clot scaffold) + (blood clot scaffold + fGF) | 3, 6, 12, and 18 months | MTA = | MTA = | MTA = | MTA- |
|
| Li Wan Lee | 2010 | In vivo | 7–10 years | 32 | Calcium hydoxide | 1 and 3 months | Calcium hydoxide = 100% | Calcium hydoxide = 96.4 % | Calcium hydoxide = 98.2% | Calcium hydoxide -98.2% |
|
| Vidal K et al. | 2016 | In vivo | 9 years | 1 | Absorbable collagen matrix + Biodentine | 3, 6, and 18 | Biodentine = 100% | Biodentine = 100% | Biodentine = 100% | Biodentine -100% |
|
| Tolugu N et al. | 2016 | In vivo | 7–11 years | 26 | MTA, BioAggregate | 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 months | MTA = 84.61% | MTA = | MTA = | BioAggregate-100% |
|
| Chaudary S et al. | 2016 | In | 11 years | 1 | Er,Cr:YSGG Laser + Biodentine | 3, 6, 18 | Er,Cr:YSGG Laser + Biodentine = 100% | Er,Cr:YSGG Laser + Biodentine = 100% | Er,Cr:YSGG Laser + Biodentine = 100% | Biodentine-100% |
|
| Moore A et al. | 2011 | In vivo | 10 years | 22 | ProRoot MTA, Angelus (White MTA) | 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months | ProRootMTA = 81.8%, | ProRoot MTA = 72.72%, | ProRoot + White MTA-95.5% | White MTA (Angelus) -95.5% |
|
| Damle SG et al. | 2012 | In vivo | 8–10 years | 30 | MTA, | 3, 6, 9, and 12 months | MTA = 100%, | MTA = 100%, | MTA = 100%, | MTA = 100% |
|
| Norsat A et al. | 2012 | In vivo | 6–10 | 51 | CEM, | 6, 12 months | CEM = 95.83%, | CEM = 86%, | CEM = 90.61%, | Calcium- enriched mixture |
|
| Ghoddusi J. et al. | 2012 | In vivo | < 14 years | 28 | MTA, Zinc Oxide Eugenol (ZOE) | 6, 12 | MTA = 91.7% | MTA = 100% | MTA = 95.85% | MTA-95.85% |
|
| Omar Meligy El AS et al. | 2011 | In vivo | 6–12 | 30 | Calcium Hydroxide, MTA | 3, 6, 12 | Calcium hydroxide = 86.66%, MTA = | Calcium hydroxide = 86.66%, MTA = | Calcium hydroxide = 86.7%, MTA = | MTA-100% |
CEM: calcium-enriched mixture; MTA: mineral trioxide aggregate
Fig. 2Graph showing summery of risk of bias: Review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Quality assessment of studies using a Newcastle-Ottawa scale
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of exposed cohort (⋆) | Selection of non-exposed cohort (⋆) | Ascertainment of exposure (⋆) | (⋆⋆) | Assessment of outcome(⋆) | Adequacy of follow-up(⋆) | ||
| Vidal K. et al (2016) | – | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | 5 |
| Chaudhary S. et al (2016) | – | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | 5 |
| Torabinejad M. et al (2011) | – | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | 5 |
Good quality: 3 or 4 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain
Fair quality: 2 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain
Poor quality: 0 or 1 star in selection domain OR 0 stars in comparability domain OR 0 or 1 stars in outcome/exposure domain
Figs 3A and B(A) Forest plot showing pooled data obtained from meta-analysis of Apexogenesis group. (B) Funnel plot showing pooled data obtained from meta-analysis of Apexogenesis group
Figs 4A and B(A) Forest plot showing pooled data obtained from meta-analysis of Apexification group. (B) Funnel plot showing pooled data obtained from meta-analysis of Apexification group
Figs 5A and B(A) Forest plot showing pooled data obtained from meta-analysis of regenerative endodontic group. (B) Funnel plot showing pooled data obtained from meta-analysis of Regenerative endodontic group