Del Fabbro Massimo, Taschieri Silvio, Lodi Giovanni, Banfi Giuseppe, Weinstein Roberto L
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, Milan, Italy, 20161.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 9;2015(12):CD005969. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005969.pub3.
After the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a drive to enhance the visualisation of the surgical field. It is important to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices such as surgical microscopes, endoscopes and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes. This version updates the review published in 2009.
To evaluate and compare the effects of endodontic treatment performed with the aid of magnification devices versus endodontic treatment without magnification devices. We also aimed to compare the different magnification devices used in endodontics with one another.
The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 13 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 13 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 13 October 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing endodontic therapy performed with versus without one or more magnification devices, as well as randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing two or more magnification devices used as an adjunct to endodontic therapy.
We conducted screening of search results independently and in duplicate. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.
No trials met the inclusion criteria for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No article was identified in the current literature that satisfied the criteria for inclusion. It is unknown if and how the type of magnification device affects the treatment outcome, considering the high number of factors that may have a significant impact on the success of endodontic surgical procedure. This should be investigated by further long-term, well-designed RCTs that conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).
在牙髓病学中引入涉及根管治疗新技术的显微外科原则后,人们一直致力于提高手术视野的可视化程度。了解诸如手术显微镜、内窥镜和放大镜等放大设备给操作者带来的技术优势是否也与患者在临床和影像学结果改善方面的优势相关,这一点很重要。本版本更新了2009年发表的综述。
评估和比较借助放大设备进行的牙髓治疗与不借助放大设备进行的牙髓治疗的效果。我们还旨在比较牙髓病学中使用的不同放大设备之间的差异。
检索了以下电子数据库:Cochrane口腔卫生组试验注册库(截至2015年10月13日)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》,2015年第9期)、通过OVID检索的MEDLINE(1946年至2015年10月13日)以及通过OVID检索的EMBASE(1980年至2015年10月13日)。我们检索了美国国立卫生研究院试验注册库(http://clinicaltrials.gov)和世界卫生组织临床试验注册平台以查找正在进行的试验。在检索电子数据库时,对语言或出版日期没有限制。
我们纳入了所有比较使用一种或多种放大设备与不使用放大设备进行牙髓治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验,以及比较两种或更多种作为牙髓治疗辅助手段的放大设备的随机和半随机试验。
我们独立且重复地对检索结果进行筛选。我们获取了潜在相关试验的全文。数据合成将遵循Cochrane协作网的统计指南。
没有试验符合本综述的纳入标准。
在当前文献中未发现符合纳入标准的文章。考虑到可能对牙髓手术成功产生重大影响的因素众多,尚不清楚放大设备的类型是否以及如何影响治疗结果。这应由进一步的符合CONSORT声明(www.consort-statement.org/)的长期、精心设计的RCT进行研究。