Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35091819›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022

Postoperative pain in root canal treatment with ultrasonic versus conventional irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lucas Orbolato Chalub, Gabriel Pereira Nunes, Túlio Morandin Ferrisse, Henrico Badaoui Strazzi-Sahyon, Paulo Henrique Dos Santos, João Eduardo Gomes-Filho, Luciano Tavares Angelo Cintra, Gustavo Sivieri-Araujo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lucas Orbolato ChalubDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8094-1422
Gabriel Pereira NunesDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil.
Túlio Morandin FerrisseOral Medicine, Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, Araraquara School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1680 Humaitá Street, Araraquara, SP, 14801-385, Brazil.
Henrico Badaoui Strazzi-SahyonDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil.
Paulo Henrique Dos SantosDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil.
João Eduardo Gomes-FilhoDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil.
Luciano Tavares Angelo CintraDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil.
Gustavo Sivieri-AraujoDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, 1193 José Bonifácio Street, Araçatuba, SP, 16015-050, Brazil. gustavo.sivieri@unesp.br.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRCentro Universitário de Araraquara · BR

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) was to answer the question whether the use of ultrasonic irrigation (UI) results in less postoperative pain (PP) compared to conventional irrigation (CI).

methodsA literature search was performed within the main scientific databases carried out until May 2021. The eligibility criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with the "META" package, the mean difference (MD) measure of effect was calculated, and the fixed effect model was applied with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Cochrane collaboration scale was used to assess risk of bias and the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence.

resultsSix RCTs were included for systematic review and four for meta-analysis. UI resulted in less PP in 3 of 5 periods, at 6 h (MD - 1.40 [CI - 2.38 to - 0.42] p = 0.0052), 24 h (MD - 0.73 [CI - 1.07 to - 0.39] p = 0.0001), and 48 h (MD - 0.36 [CI - 0.59 to - 0.13] p = 0.022). However, PP showed no significant differences between the groups at 72 h and 7 days (p > 0.05). A low risk of bias was observed for most domains, except allocation that was considered unclear. The certainty of evidence was classified as moderate (24 h, 48 h, and 7 days) and low (6 and 72 h).

conclusionWithin the limitations of this SRM, UI presented less occurrence of PP than CI. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to corroborate these findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: UI should be used by clinicians as it reduces postoperative pain in patients undergoing endodontic treatment.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp CavityUltrasonicsHumansPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRoot Canal TherapyConventional irrigationEndodontic treatmentMeta-analysisPostoperative painSystematic reviewUltrasonic irrigation

Identifiers

PMID35091819
OpenAlexW4210539279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.