Prevalence of Root Canal Treatments among Diabetic Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
(1) Apical periodontitis (AP) is the inflammatory response of the periapical tissue to bacterial antigens and toxins arriving from inside the root canal after pulp necrosis. To control AP, it is necessary to interrupt the passage of antigens from the root canal to the periapex, which is achieved via a root canal treatment (RCT), which is the indicated endodontic therapy in cases of AP. The prevalence of root-filled teeth (RFT) is an indicator of the frequency of endodontic infections and the degree of dental care. Diabetes is associated with AP and has been identified as the main prognostic factor in RCT. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review with meta-analysis answering the following question: What is the prevalence of RFT among diabetic patients? (2) This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 2020. A literature search was undertaken without limits on time or language until 12 January 2023 in PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase and Scielo. All studies reporting the prevalence of RFT among diabetic patients via radiographic examination; both panoramic and periapical radiographs were included. Meta-analyses were calculated with Open Meta Analyst software. The main outcome variable was the prevalence of RFT, calculated as the total number of RFT divided by the total number of teeth, which is expressed as a percentage. As a secondary outcome variable, the prevalence of diabetic patients with at least one RFT, expressed as a percentage, was also calculated. The quality of evidence of the included studies was analyzed according to the guidelines provided by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in Oxford. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, which was adapted for cross-sectional studies. To estimate the variance and heterogeneity amongst the trials, the Higgings I2 test was employed. (3) Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four studies were classified as having a high risk of bias, and four were classified as having a moderate risk of bias. The prevalence of RFT was estimated for 37,922 teeth and 1532 diabetic patients. The overall calculated prevalence of RFT among diabetic patients was 5.5% (95% CI = 4.1–6.9%; p < 0.001). The percentage of diabetics who had at least one RFT was 42.7% (95% CI = 23.9–61.4%; p < 0.001). (4) This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that the prevalence of RFT among diabetic patients is 5.5%. More than 40% of diabetics have at least one RFT. In daily clinics, dentists should suspect that patients are undiagnosed diabetics when multiple RCT failures are observed in the same patient.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,015 | 0,027 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».