Dataset Information

Interventions for the management of external root resorption.

ABSTRACT:

Background

External root resorption is a pathological process, which tends to occur following a wide range of mechanical or chemical stimuli such as infection, pressure, trauma or orthodontic tooth movement. Although it is predominantly detected by radiography, in some cases root resorption may be identified by clinical symptoms such as pain, swelling and mobility of the tooth. Treatment alternatives are case-dependent and aim to address the cause of the resorption and aid the regeneration of the resorptive lesion.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness of any interventions that can be used in the management of external root resorption in permanent teeth.

Search methods

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 14 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 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.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials of permanent teeth with any type of external root resorption, which has been confirmed by clinical and radiological examination, comparing one type of intervention (root canal medications and canal filling, splinting or extraction of teeth or the surgical removal of any relevant pathology) with another, or with placebo or no treatment.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors screened search records independently. Full papers were obtained for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, the statistical guidelines set out in the Cochrane Handbook would have been followed.

Main results

No randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. However, we identified one ongoing study that is potentially relevant to this review and will be assessed when it is published.

Authors' conclusions

We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials regarding the efficacy of different interventions for the management of external root resorption. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must decide on the most appropriate means of managing this condition according to their clinical experience with regard to patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).

SUBMITTER: Ahangari Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7185846 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a clinical practice guideline on orthodontically induced external apical root resorption (EARR), with evidence-based and, when needed, consensus-based recommendations concerning diagnosis, risk factors, management during treatment, and after-treatment care.Materials and methodsThe Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument and the Dutch Method for Evidence-Based Guideline Development were used to develop the guideline. Based on a survey of all Dutch orthodontists, we formulated four clinical questions regarding EARR. To address these questions, we conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE and Embase, and we performed a systematic literature review. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. After discussing the evidence, a Task Force formulated considerations and recommendations. The drafted guideline was sent for comments to all relevant stakeholders.ResultsEight studies were included. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low or very low. Only the patient-related risk factors, 'gender' and 'age', showed a moderate quality of evidence. The Task Force formulated 13 final recommendations concerning the detection of EARR, risk factors, EARR management during treatment, and after-treatment care when EARR has occurred. Stakeholder consultation resulted in 51 comments on the drafted guideline. After processing the comments, the final guideline was authorized by the Dutch Association of Orthodontists. The entire process took 3 years.LimitationsThe quality of the available evidence was mainly low, and patient-reported outcome measures were lacking.Conclusions/implicationsThis clinical practice guideline allows clinicians to respond to EARR based on current knowledge, although the recommendations are weak due to low-quality evidence. It may reduce variation between practices and aid in providing patients appropriate information.

Project description:BackgroundExternal root resorption (ERR) has a multifactorial etiology and is difficult to diagnose, which means that is continues to be of research interest. This work mainly aims to determine whether external root resorption can be differentially detected in root-filled versus non-endodontically treated teeth using digital periapical radiography (DPR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).MethodsThe Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies (CRIS) guidelines were followed throughout this study. This experiment highlights the preparation and generation of standardized synthetic teeth measured on three-dimensional records converted into Digital Imaging and Communication on Medicine (DICOM) file format. Twelve replicate maxillary incisors were randomized into two groups: (G1) six non-endodontically treated, and (G2) six endodontically treated teeth. In both groups, actual tooth lengths of all specimens were measured and compared with measurements obtained using DPR and CBCT. Simulated ERR lesions [0.12, 0.18, 0.20 mm × 0.5 mm depth in the mesial, distal and palatal apical regions] were created progressively, radiographic images were recorded, and 24 DPRs and 96 CBCTs were obtained in total. Eight blinded, previously calibrated researchers made a total of 1920 measurements (using Horos Software). Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank post-hoc tests [Bonferroni correction in multiple comparison tests (p < 0.05)].ResultsICC values for intra- and inter-examiner agreement were appropriate. DPR overestimated ERR detection compared to the actual and CBCT measurements [Mean diff = 0.765 and 0.768, respectively]. CBCT diagnosis of ERR lesions in specimens without root canal treatment was significantly more accurate than DPR diagnoses on both non-endodontically and endodontically-treated specimens [p = 0.044; p = 0.037, respectively]. There was an 18.5% reduction in sensitivity in all DPR diagnoses made on endodontic teeth versus those made on non-endodontically treated teeth. For the smallest ERR lesions, this sensitivity was even more marked, with 27.8 and 25% less sensitivity, respectively.ConclusionsThe results of this study highlight that both CBCT and DPR are good diagnostic methods for ERR. Nevertheless, root canal filling material influences diagnostic capability in ERR. The clinical significance was that the presence of intracanal material reduces the detection and diagnosis of ERR by DPR in teeth with root canal treatment.