共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
《Journal of endodontics》2022,48(1):29-39
IntroductionInconsistencies in the definitions of endodontic outcome terminology jeopardize evaluations of proposed interventions and patient care quality. This scoping review aimed to provide groundwork to develop a set of basic outcomes in endodontics.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 with patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment, retreatment, or apexification. Abstracted data on outcome assessment methods, assessors, and domains were reported after univariate and bivariate analyses.ResultsTreatment outcomes were evaluated radiographically (88%) or clinically (73%). Although 2-dimensional radiography exceeded 3-dimensional radiography, the use of the latter has increased since 2010, mostly for nonsurgical retreatments. Of 19 identified outcomes, 5 were most frequent: success (168 studies, 40%), radiographic healing (128 studies, 30%), survival (of an asymptomatic tooth [48 studies, 12%] or of a procedure code in administrative databases [31 studies, 7%]), pain assessment (14 studies, 3%), and quality of life (11 studies, 3%). Clinician-centered outcomes have been most frequently studied since the 1980s (71%), in academic settings (76%), and using a prospective design (45%). Patient-centered outcomes were reported in 19% of studies before 2010 and 30% since 2010. They were more common among retrospective studies (49%).ConclusionsPatient-centered outcome measures are lacking in endodontic studies. The state of available research can provide a baseline for the development of a core outcome set in endodontics, which should represent the important patient-centered outcomes in conjunction with well-validated clinician-centered outcomes. 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
K Reddy S Adalarasan S Mohan P Sreenivasan A Thangavelu 《Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery》2011,10(3):185-189
Introduction
Maxillofacial surgery is one of the most rapidly expanding specialities in India. There is however a very poor understanding of the scope of the speciality. This paper attempts to find out the awareness of the speciality in India. 相似文献7.
8.
9.
Introduction
The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative pain after single-visit and 2-visit non-surgical endodontic retreatments with 2 different intracanal medicaments.Methods
A total of 150 patients with asymptomatic root canal–treated teeth in need of nonsurgical endodontic retreatment were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 50). Patients were selected randomly from among those without preoperative pain. Patients in group 1 (single visit) were treated in a single visit. Patients in group 2 and group 3 were treated in different visits with calcium hydroxide and chlorhexidine (CHX) as intracanal medicaments. The presence of postoperative pain was assessed 1, 2, 3, and 7 days and 1 month after treatment. All 2-visit treatments were completed 1 week after the initial visit. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Pearson chi-square tests (α = 0.01, 0.05).Results
Postoperative pain was significantly higher in the CHX group in comparison with the single-visit group (P ≤ .05) on the first day of assessment. On the second day, postoperative pain was significantly less in the single-visit group (P < .05) than in the other 2 groups. There were no significant differences among the groups on the third and seventh days of assessment. At the 1-month assessment, postoperative pain was significantly higher in both the calcium hydroxide group (P < .05) and the CHX group (P < .05) in comparison with the single-visit group.Conclusions
Single-visit nonsurgical endodontic retreatment presented fewer incidences of postoperative pain in comparison with 2-visit nonsurgical endodontic retreatment based on assessments ranging from 1 day to 1 month. 相似文献10.
Meetu R. Kohli Homayon Berenji Frank C. Setzer Su-Min Lee Bekir Karabucak 《Journal of endodontics》2018,44(6):923-931
Introduction
The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of root-end preparation and filling material on endodontic surgery outcome. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the outcome of resin-based endodontic surgery (RES, the use of high-magnification preparation of a shallow and concave root-end cavity and bonded resin-based root-end filling material) versus endodontic microsurgery (EMS, the use of high-magnification ultrasonic root-end preparation and root-end filling with SuperEBA [Keystone Industries, Gibbstown, NJ], IRM [Dentsply Sirona, York, PA], mineral trioxide aggregate [MTA], or other calcium silicate cements).Methods
An exhaustive literature search was conducted to identify prognostic studies on the outcome of root-end surgery. Human studies conducted from 1966 to the end of December 2016 in 5 different languages (ie, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish) were searched in 4 electronic databases (ie, Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library). Relevant review articles on the subject were scrutinized for cross-references. In addition, 5 dental and medical journals (Journal of Endodontics; International Endodontic Journal; Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics; Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; and International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) were hand checked dating back to 1975. All abstracts were screened by 3 independent reviewers (H.B., M.K., and F.S.). Strict inclusion-exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant articles. Raw data were extracted from the full-text review of these selected articles independently by each of the 3 reviewers. In case of disagreement, an agreement was reached by discussion, and qualifying articles were assigned to group RES. For EMS, the same search strategy was performed for the time frame October 2009 to December 2016, whereas up to October 2009 the data were obtained from a previous systematic review with identical criteria and search strategy. Weighted pooled success rates and a relative risk assessment between RES and EMS were calculated. To make a comparison between groups, a random effects model was used.Results
Sixty-eight articles were eligible for full-text review. Of these, per strict inclusion exclusion criteria, 14 studies qualified, 3 for RES (n = 862) and 11 for EMS (n = 915). Weighted pooled success rates for RES were 82.20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7965–0.8476) and 94.42% for EMS (95% CI, 0.9295–0.9590). This difference was statistically significant (P < .0005).Conclusions
The probability for success for EMS proved to be significantly greater than the probability for success for RES, providing best available evidence on the influence of cavity preparation with ultrasonic tips and/or SuperEBA (Keystone Industries, Gibbstown, NJ), IRM (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA), MTA, or silicate cements as root-end filling material instead of a shallow cavity preparation and placement of a resin-based material. Additional large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to assess other predictors of outcome. 相似文献11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Udupikrishna M. Joshi Ashwini Munnangi Kundan Shah Satishkumar G. Patil Nitin Thakur 《Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery》2017,16(2):181-185