Effectiveness of adjunct therapy for the treatment of apical periodontitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjunct therapy refers to any intracanal procedure going beyond chemomechanical preparation with instruments and traditionally delivered irrigants (excluding interim dressings). It is not clear whether and which of these adjunct therapies have a significant impact on the outcome of root canal treatment [healing of apical periodontitis (AP) and other patient-related outcomes]. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to analyse available evidence on the effectiveness of adjunct therapy for the treatment of AP in permanent teeth, according to a population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time and study design framework formulated a priori by the European Society of Endodontology. METHODS: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science) were searched up to October 2021 to identify clinical studies comparing adjunct therapy to no adjunct therapy in adult patients with AP. Animal studies, reviews, studies with less than 10 patients per arm and studies with a follow-up time of less than 1 year, or less than 7 days for postoperative pain, were excluded. The quality of the included studies was appraised by the appropriate tools [Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies]. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (13 RCTs and one retrospective cohort) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. They evaluated different types of adjunct therapy: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT; three studies), diode laser canal irradiation (3), Nd:YAG laser canal irradiation (2), Er;Cr:YSGG laser canal irradiation (1), ozone therapy (2) and ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) (4). Radiographical healing was reported in seven studies, but meta-analysis was only possible for UAI (two studies), showing no statistically significant difference in healing after 12 months. Pain after 7 days was reported in seven studies. Meta-analysis on three studies that used aPDT and on two studies using diode laser irradiation showed no significant difference in the prevalence of pain after 7 days between the control and adjunct therapy. According to RoB2 tool, six studies had a high risk of bias, five studies had some concerns, and two studies low risk of bias. The GRADE assessment revealed a very low strength of evidence for diode laser, and low strength of evidence for PDT, ozone and UAI studies. DISCUSSION: The included studies displayed significant heterogeneity in terms of type of adjunct therapy, technical details per adjunct therapy, outcome reporting and several combinations of these, limiting the potential for meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend any adjunctive therapy for the treatment of apical periodontitis. REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42021261869.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".