SynthesisSystematic reviews2024
Efficacy of non-instrumental Endodontic treatment in primary teeth: a systematic review of clinical randomized trials.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A long-term retrospective evaluation of pulpectomy and calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste resorption in primary teeth managed under dental general anaesthesia.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- Phytotherapy in Pediatric Dentistry: A Narrative Review of Clinical Applications and Evidence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndodontic therapy in pediatric dentistry is a challenging procedure, especially for special needs, uncooperative, and very young patients. A new conservative approach which is the non-instrumental endodontic treatment (NIET) has been developed to simplify the management of primary teeth requiring pulpectomy. This review aimed to compare the efficiency of NIET and conventional endodontic treatment in primary teeth.
methodsElectronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Scopus without restrictions on publication year or publication language were searched. Only randomized clinical trials reporting clinical and radiographical outcomes of NIET and conventional pulpectomy on primary teeth were considered eligible. Two reviewers extracted the data according to the PRISMA statement and assessed the bias risk using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and a meta-analysis was performed.
resultsFrom 3322 screened articles, seven articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included. The selected studies included 283 primary molars, of 213 children aged between 3 and 9 years, treated by NIET and conventional pulpectomy, and had follow-up periods ranging from 1 month to tooth exfoliation. Two studies reported good success rates for both the NIET technique and endodontic therapy with no statistically significant difference while three studies showed radiographical significant differences with a low success rate for the NIET technique. Only one study reported better outcomes in the pulpectomy group with statistically significant differences. The quantitative grouping of the included studies showed no significant differences between NIET and conventional endodontic therapy regarding clinical and radiographical success (p value > 0.05).
conclusionNo difference between the NIET technique and the conventional endodontic therapy in primary molars requiring pulpectomy could be confirmed. Results of the present review need to be interpreted with caution since the quality of evidence according to the GRADE was considered as moderate to very low. Therefore, additional clinical trials on the NIET technique are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.