Non‐surgical root canal treatment and retreatment versus apical surgery in treating apical periodontitis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In addition to non-surgical root canal treatment or retreatment, apical surgery may be carried out to manage teeth with apical periodontitis. However, it is unclear which treatment option is more effective. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of apical surgery compared with non-surgical treatment or retreatment in terms of clinical and patient-related outcomes in teeth with apical periodontitis. METHODS: A literature search of electronic databases, the grey literature, the reference lists of included articles and previous reviews, and a hand search of leading endodontic journals, was conducted. Randomised and non-randomised control trials, and longitudinal observational studies on patients undergoing surgical (treatment group) and non-surgical root canal treatment or retreatment (control group) of teeth with apical periodontitis were included. The risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool; ROBINS-I and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five studies, consisting of two randomised clinical trials, two non-randomised clinical trials, and a retrospective cohort study, were included. The interobserver agreement was high and kappa correlation coefficient was good. In total 529 teeth were available for follow-up that varied from 6 months to 8.7 years. The overall risk of bias was high for four studies and raised some concerns in one study. Apical surgery showed seemly better results regarding periapical healing and less need for more and further intervention, although tooth survival was higher in the control group. Given the heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible. DISCUSSION: Previous systematic reviews have conducted an indirect comparison by separately pooling the outcomes of studies analysing either non-surgical, or surgical, treatment. In this systematic review, only studies that compared both treatments were included. Most results of this and previous reviews were similar. CONCLUSION: No treatment option showed clear superiority. However, to arrive at statistically supported conclusions there is a need for additional high-quality comparative trials. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (Registration number CRD42021260300).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".