Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40702914›Full record

SynthesisClinical and experimental dental research2025

Postoperative Pain After Root Canal Preparation With Different Instruments in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Kavalipurapu Venkata Teja, Kaligotla Apoorva Vasundhara, Gianrico Spagnuolo, Mariangela Cernera, Niccolò Giuseppe Armogida, Flavia Iaculli, Carlo Rengo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kavalipurapu Venkata TejaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Mamata Institute of Dental Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Kaligotla Apoorva VasundharaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals - Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
Gianrico SpagnuoloDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3769-9786
Mariangela CerneraDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Niccolò Giuseppe ArmogidaDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Flavia IaculliDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Carlo RengoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this study.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different instrumentation systems in reducing postoperative pain following root canal preparation in primary teeth. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe present study was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020135904). The review aimed to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative pain incidence using various instrumentation systems (manual and mechanical) for root canal preparation of primary teeth during pulpectomy. An extensive database search was performed using specific MeSH terms to include clinical studies up to November 2024. Based on eligibility criteria, the selected articles were subjected to quality assessment and the risk of bias was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool. In addition, meta-analyses were conducted on homogeneous studies.

resultsA total of 11 studies were included for qualitative assessments, and 7 studies underwent quantitative analysis. The results review indicated that mechanical instrumentation systems yielded better overall pain reduction compared to manual systems. The meta-analysis further demonstrated statistically significant pain reduction at 6 (p < 0.01, 95% CI: 1.46) and 12 h (p < 0.01, 95% CI: 2.15). However, no notable pain reduction or significance were observed at other time points (p = 0.41, 95% CI: 1.66; p = 0.23, 95% CI: 1.67; p = 0.61, 95% CI: 1.25). The overall risk of bias was low for the included studies.

conclusionRotary NiTi instrumentation systems were superior in reducing Postoperative pain incidence in primary teeth undergoing pulpectomy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Mechanical instrumentation is not only advantageous in decreasing overall treatment time, but also in reducing pain incidence after pulpectomy, which nowadays represents an important and widely used procedure to preserve primary teeth.

Indexed as

Postoperative PainRoot Canal PreparationTooth, DeciduousHumansPulpectomyendodontic treatmentmechanical instrumentationpainprimary teethpulpectomyroot canal preparation

Identifiers

PMID40702914
PMCPMC12287618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.