Single-visit versus multiple-visits endodontic treatment of apical periodontitis: A meta-analysis of outcome assessed by intra oral radiographs

doi:10.21203/rs.2.16318/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Single-visit versus multiple-visits endodontic treatment of apical periodontitis: A meta-analysis of outcome assessed by intra oral radiographs

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.16318/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The established multiple-visit treatment for necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis has been challenged by single-visit treatment. However, there is no clear support for the one or the other treatment in the literature. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate if non-surgical primary root canal treatment carried out in single-visit or multiple-visit makes any difference in terms of radiographic healing in necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis. The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in the rate of apical healing for the two treatment modalities The literature search was organized through the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM the National Library of Medicine (NLM)) using PubMed database and EMBASE Ovid to select articles with single-visit or multiple-visit included teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis. Of the 60 identified studies, only eight studies were included in current meta-analysis. The main reasons for exclusions were teeth with other diagnosis except necrotic pulp and apical periodontitis, studies with no comparison between single- and multiple-visit endodontics within the same study and studies without healing rate appearance. Results from each of the included studies were entered into the statistical program Stata, Version 15 (Texas, USA). The odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence interval for each study were calculated (dependent variable: single-visit/multiple-visit, independent variables: healed/not healed based on intra oral radiographs) with the random effect model. There was no significant difference in radiographic evidence of periapical healing between single-visit endodontics and multiple-visit treatment modalities, of the primary root canal treatment in necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.67-1.83) as evaluated on intra oral radiographs. Thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected.

Head & Neck Surgery

Apical periodontitis

single-visit endodontics

multiple-visit endodontics

outcome

pulp necrosis

Untreated necrotic pulp tissue will by time be infected and develop apical periodontitis as a response to microorganisms in the root canal system [1–3]. The success of root canal treatment is directly dependent on the elimination or eradication of root canal infection [4–8]. Mechanical instrumentation alone causes a complete elimination of bacteria in only 20–43 % of cases [9]. Additional irrigation with antibacterial reagents such as 0.5 % sodium hypochlorite provides disinfection in 40–60 % of root canal treatments [10]. Inter-appointment root canal medication with calcium hydroxide, commonly used in multiple-visit endodontic treatment, reduces the bacterial count, but it does not ensure total eradication of microorganisms in the root canal system [11]. The antimicrobial properties of calcium hydroxide are related to the release of hydroxyl ions. Hydroxyl ions kill bacteria by damaging the cytoplasmic membrane, protein denaturation, and damage to the DNA. Bacterial cells use proton pumps to manage pH homeostasis within a narrow physiological range so that enzymes and proteins function normally [12]. It has been demonstrated that some microorganisms such as Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans can resist the effectiveness of calcium hydroxide medications in root canals [13–16].

Extensive controversy exists over the question of whether it is desirable to complete root canal treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis in a single-visit session. Single-visit root canal treatment aims to entomb the remaining microorganisms, and depriving them from nutrition [17–20]. Root canal treatment in a single-visit is gaining popularity over the traditional multiple-visit endodontics because of several advantages; chair-side time reduction, less susceptibility to reinfection through the temporary filling and root canal dressing [18, 21–23], costs reduction, high patient acceptance [24] and reduced flare-up rate [25, 26]. It has also been shown that calcium hydroxide may be difficult to remove from the irregular root canal walls [27]. Remaining calcium hydroxide on the canal walls affects the quality of the root filling negatively [28–31]. According to an in vitro study, residue calcium hydroxide can hinder the penetration of sealers into the dentinal tubules [32]. Calcium hydroxide paste can result in degenerative changes and necrosis as shown by intense inflammatory responses in animal models [33], and histology [34–36].

For evaluating the healing of apical periodontitis after root canal treatment, periapical radiographs are needed. Radiographic appearance of the periapical tissue can be evaluated according to classification of Reit and Gröndahl [37] from 1983 (5-point scale), the Periapical Index (PAI) by Ørstavik et al. (5-point scale) [38], or the 3-point scale developed by Halse and Molven [39].

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate if non-surgical primary root canal treatment carried out in single-visit or multiple-visit makes any difference in terms of radiographic healing in necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the rate of apical healing for the two treatment modalities in primary endodontic therapies in permanent necrotic teeth with preoperative apical periodontitis as assessed by intra oral radiographs.

Without a well-focused question, it is difficult to identify appropriate resources and search for relevant evidence. To form the question and facilitate the literature search, the PICO framework was used [40], and is presented in Table 1.

A professional librarian specializing in literature search in medical topics carried out a search in PubMed and EMBASE databases together with the authors. The literature searches were carried out October 2^th, 2018, and the search strategy is given in Table 2. A systematic search for unpublished studies was not carried out.

Due to different search methodologies in the two databases, the number of search terms are unequal. According to results from the search strategy 34 studies were identified by EMBASE [4, 7, 17, 18, 25, 26, 41-68] and 48 by PubMed database [4, 5, 7, 17-19, 26, 43-47, 49-51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65-92]. Several studies were duplicates [4, 7, 17, 18, 26, 43-47, 49-51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65-68]. A total of 60 original studies were reviewed, including randomized clinical trials (RCT) and follow-up studies (non-RCT). The flow of the study process and final number of included studies are shown in Fig. 1. Inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis are given in Table 3. There were no restriction to index used for scoring apical periodontitis on intra oral radiographs. Criteria for exclusion are given in Table 4.

To avoid bias and confirm or refute individual findings, so called meta-analytical methods was used to aggregate information from different studies and provide quantitative estimates of the effect. In the present study, data from relevant literature were combined statistically to provide a quantitative estimate of the strength of association between the radiographic healing rate of root canal treatment and number of treatment visits.

The PPISMA statement for reporting meta-analyses was acknowledged [93].

Statistical methods

All data were entered and analyzed in Stata, Version 15 (Texas, USA). Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR), the 95 % confidence interval (CI) and the standard error (SE) of the OR for each study (dependent variable: single-visit versus multiple-visit, independent variables: healed/not healed). To account for the possibility that there are a true (random) difference between the included studies (e.g. patient groups) and variation by chance between the studies, the random effect model was applied to calculate the overall effect size (summary OR), as described by Fleiss (62). Forest plot were designed for the different analyses.

From the 60 identified papers, a total of 52 papers were excluded according to our exclusion criteria. Excluded studies and the reason for exclusion from the present meta-analysis are presented in Table 4.

Of all identified studies through the literature search strategies given in Tables 2, only eight studies were included in our final analysis, see Table 5. For studies using either «incomplete» [18] or «uncertain» [4, 57] healing, the teeth in these groups were categorized as «not healed». In all of the eight included studies [4, 18, 23, 50, 55, 57, 73, 81], the teeth in the multiple-visit groups were root filled in the second session (some studies call this the two-visit group).

In all included studies rubber dam was applied and the root canal irrigation regimen included sodium hypochlorite concentrations of 0.5 % [57], 1 % [18], 2 % [4], 2.5 % [23, 73], 3 % [81] and 5.25 % [50, 55]. Three studies [50, 55, 73] used 17 % ethylenediaminetetraacetate in addition, whereas by one study the irrigation was completed using 5 % iodine-potassium-iodine solution (Lugol’s solution) for 10 minutes [57]. In cases with multiple-visit treatment the intra-canal medication was placed for at least one week before root canal treatment was completed. Calcium hydroxide was the inter-appointment medication in all included studies. In two studies calcium hydroxide was not mixed with sterile saline; Penesis et al. [55] used calcium hydroxide powder mixed with 2 % chlorhexidine liquid, and Gill et al. [73] used calcium hydroxide with iodoform paste (Vitapax) as inter-appointment medication of multiple-visit treatment teeth. Six studies obturated root canals with lateral condensation technique using gutta-percha and different sealers. The other two studies used either warm lateral-compaction technique and sealer [4] or warm vertical condensation technique and sealer [55]. In all included studies the teeth were coronally sealed by the operator performing the endodontic treatment. More detailed information about treatment procedure and evaluation in each of the included studies are presented in Table 5.

The results showed an overall OR of 1.10 (95% CI: 0.67-1.83) for non-healed outcome for the multiple-visit group as compared to the single-visit group indicating no increased risk for the multiple-visit group versus the single visit group. The calculated OR for each included study is shown in Fig. 2. Only the study by Paredes-Vieyra & Enriquez [50] showed a significant risk (odds ratio of 3.5, 95% CI:1,23-9.90) for non-healing in the multiple-visit group, which means that there is a 3.5 times the odds of non-healing in the multiple-visit group as compared to the single-visit group. The remaining seven studies [4, 18, 23, 55, 57, 73, 81] and the overall analysis showed no difference between outcomes of the two different treatment groups. In Fig. 2, the overall OR for the non-RCT (OR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.57-1.88) and the RCT (OR 1.17, 95% CI: 0.66-2.10) studies are also presented separately, and show close values for the OR.

The studies using the PAI-index for radiographic evaluation of healing were analyzed separately, with an overall OR of 1.10 (95% CI: 0.64-1.89). This indicate that there is no difference between the two treatment modalities regarding index used for scoring of radiographic healing of apical periodontitis (Fig. 3).

The findings of the present meta-analysis showed no statistical difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment modalities. This means that there is no difference between the treatment regimens, or, alternatively, the sample size is too small to demonstrate a true difference. Trope et al. [66] demonstrated a radiographic healing rate of 64 % in single-visit versus 74 % in multiple-visit treatment. However, the difference was not significant. They calculated the need for a sample size of 354 teeth in each treatment group for demonstrating significant differences based on power set at 80 %. The number of treated teeth in the present meta-analysis, 351 in single-visit and 315 in multiple-visit treatment, approached the calculated number by Trope. A larger sample size is desired, giving a higher power in the statistical analysis, but there are lack of randomized clinical trial in multi-centre settings in the field of endodontology [94]. In this meta-analysis 65 teeth out of 351 (18 %) in the single-visit group and 63 out of 315 (20 %) in the multiple-visit group were not healed (Table 5), given a difference of 1.5 % between the two treatment groups. According to calculations in Stata, 10844 teeth are needed in each treatment groups to achieve a significance different between the two treatment regimens at this low level.

The present meta-analysis included clinical follow-up studies, and was not limited to randomized clinical trials. Clinical follow-up studies are lower in the hierarchy of evidence. Only three [50, 55, 57] of the eight included studies in the current meta-analysis were randomized controlled trials. Of the 666 teeth included in present meta-analysis, 434 were included in the three abovementioned RCTs. The remaining five studies were follow-up studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Sathorn at el. [5] in 2005 aimed to answer if single-visit treatment results in a lower healing rate then multiple-visit treatment with calcium hydroxide dressing. They included only three studies [4, 18, 66], all of them ordinary follow-up studies and concluded that there was no statistically significance in healing between single-visit and multiple-visit root canal treatment, which is in agreement with the findings of the present study with an extension of included studies.

Lucena et al. reported quality assessment of randomized clinical trials limited to English language articles published in the field of endodontology between 1997 and 2012 as poor. Sample description, no adherence to Helsinki Declaration regarding ethical aspects, lack of information on randomization methods and no previous sample size estimation or inappropriate sample size estimation and inappropriate reports of statistical analysis contributed to the weakness and limitations [95]. However, the present study showed no difference comparing radiographic outcome of RTCs and non-RCTs.

Clinical trials in endodontics cannot easily be completely blinded. For example, when comparing single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment, both patients and dentists are inevitably aware of their randomized assignment. However, a blinded assessment of outcome can often be achieved, as recorded in six of the included studies in the present meta-analysis [4, 18, 50, 55, 57, 66, 73]. In six of the eight included studies, the evaluation of radiographic outcome was carried out blinded and not performed by the operators. One study [18] mentioned that the radiographs were judged by the operators involved in the treatment, however the examiners did not know whether the tooth belonged to the single-visit or the multiple-visit group. Dorasani et al. [81] did not clearly describe the radiographic evaluation procedure. On the other hand, many investigators believe that the data obtained are less reliable than those obtained from double-blind trials [96].

Although published literature is the main source of evidence for clinical decision-making, there are still concerns that many studies, in particular those with negative results, are not published. Since there is a tendency that studies with positive results would more likely be published than studies with negative results, publication bias is a concern for most meta-analyses and systematic reviews. There was no test of publication bias performed in our meta-analysis, due to the very small number of identified randomized controlled trials. The literature search in PubMed and EMBASE databases used most relevant terms related to the null hypothesis, thus, we claim that a possible selection bias was minimized. Nonetheless, language limitations and size of apical lesion are examples for limitations that can contribute to selection bias.

In all included studies, the patients were randomly assigned to each treatment groups, and root canal treatment was performed according to standardized protocols, using rubber dam and establishment of asepsis. The teeth in five of the included studies [4, 50, 66, 73, 81] were treated by one operator, in one study by two operators [18] an in another study by four operators [57]. In one of the included studies [55] the number of operators were reported to be more than one. However, it was not exactly clear how many persons that had been involved in the treatment processes. A low number of operators in each study may increase the internal validity of each of them.

Five of the included studies used the PAI-index [50, 55, 66, 73, 81], which is reasonably accurate, reproducible and able to discriminate between sub-populations. According to Ørstavik et al. [38] PAI-score 3 was seen as disease, by which changes in bone structure could be detected with some mineral loss. It is applicable to use the PAI-score for the analysis of periapical radiographs in clinical trials, epidemiological and in retrospective studies of endodontic outcome [38]. Thus, included studies using the PAI-index should be comparable. By doing separate calculations on the studies using the PAI-index for final assessment of outcome, the overall OR were close to the overall OR for all included studies. As such, the different indices are relatively close when it comes to evaluation outcome on intraoral radiographs reported on a dichotomous scale as healed or not-healed. The important aspect for the present meta-analysis is that, regardless of the index used, the same index was used for both study groups in each study.

In the present meta-analysis, only teeth with definite preoperative apical periodontitis were included to make the comparison between the treatment protocols viable. There was no evidence of a difference, in terms of radiological healing between teeth treated in a single-visit compared with teeth following a multiple-visit protocol (OR=1.10). Our finding is consistent with the results of a meta-analysis from 2005 where only three of the eight identified studies in this meta-analysis were analyzed [5].

The observation time in four of the included studies was 12 months [55, 66, 73, 81], in two of them 24 months [50, 57] and in the remaining two studies almost five years [4, 18]. However, it has been concluded that simple calculation of success rates would overestimate the chance of complete periapical healing within the first years after therapy, but underestimate it over longer observation periods [97]. It has also been demonstrated that there is a gradual increase of periapical healing over a period of four years [4, 18]. Several studies choose a 12-months follow-up evaluation as an end-point due to the resource-intensive nature of clinical studies and difficulty of controlling patient loss over time [98-100]. By using the PAI-index, evidence of periapical changes in bone density associated with healing should be apparent at 12 months and longer observation times might not be necessary [101]. The 1‐year follow‐up was first recommended by Ørstavik [102], who showed a peak in incidence of healing or emerging chronic apical periodontitis (CAP) at 1 year. Risk assessments at 2, 3, and 4 years did not indicate an added risk that filled roots developed CAP during this period. Although complete healing of preoperative CAP in some instances required 4 years to heal, initial signs of healing (although incomplete) were visible in at least 89% of all healed teeth after 1 year. The fact that the included studies had a follow-up time of 12 month or more adds to the validity of the study.

Except for the study by Paredes-Vieyra & Enriquez [50], which presented a significant risk (odds ratio of 3.5) in favour of single-visit endodontics, all other included studies showed no significant difference between the treatment modalities. The same finding was reported in a meta-analysis by Schwendicke & Gostemeyer [44]. In this study, the aim was to study several factors such as pain and flare-ups related to one-visit versus multiple- visit root canal treatment. Their main inclusion criteria was randomized controlled trials or controlled trials without signs of selection bias and studies comparing single-visit with multiple-visit root canal treatment in permanent teeth with closed apices, regardless of the preoperative condition. In two other systematic reviews, the radiographic healing in single-visit root canal treatment appeared to be slightly more effective than multiple-visit treatment, however without reaching statistical significance [5, 7].

Based on identified studies, there was no significant difference in radiographic evidence of periapical healing between single-visit endodontics and multiple-visit treatment modalities, and the null hypothesis could not be rejected. However, the total number of included teeth in this analysis is too small to support this as a final conclusion to the research question.

Abbreviations

CI – confidence interval

OR – odds ratio

PAI – periapical index

RCT – randomized controlled trial

SE – standard error

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and material

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

There was no funding for this review.

Authors’ contribution

Author BDM and AB has contributed in the determination of search strategy (together with the librarian), selection of relevant studies, data extraction and analyses, and drafting the manuscript. Both authors has revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to librarian Christine Tarlebø Mjøs for assistance and guidance in a structured literature search, and to professor in medical statistics Stein Atle Lie for help and guidance with the statistical analysis.

Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ: The Effects of Surgical Exposures of Dental Pulps in Germ-Free and Conventional Laboratory Rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965, 20:340-349.
Möller AJ, Fabricius L, Dahlén G, Ohman AE, Heyden G: Influence on periapical tissues of indigenous oral bacteria and necrotic pulp tissue in monkeys. Scand J Dent Res. 1981, 89(6):475-484.
Sundquist G: Bacteriological studies of necrotic dental pulps. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå University; 1976.
Peters LB, Wesselink PR: Periapical healing of endodontically treated teeth in one and two visits obturated in the presence or absence of detectable microorganisms. Int Endod J. 2002, 35(8):660-667.
Sathorn C, Parashos P, Messer HH: Effectiveness of single- versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J. 2005, 38(6):347-355.
Zehnder M: Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006, 32(5):389-398.
Figini L, Lodi G, Gorni F, Gagliani M: Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth: a Cochrane systematic review. J Endod. 2008, 34(9):1041-1047.
Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV: The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2009, 42(4):288-302.
Byström A, Sundqvist G: Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res. 1981, 89(4):321-328.
Byström A, Sundqvist G: Bacteriologic evaluation of the effect of 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1983, 55(3):307-312.
Law A, Messer H: An evidence-based analysis of the antibacterial effectiveness of intracanal medicaments. J Endod. 2004, 30(10):689-694.
Siqueira JF, Jr., Lopes HP: Mechanisms of antimicrobial activity of calcium hydroxide: a critical review. Int Endod J. 1999, 32(5):361-369.
Ørstavik D, Haapasalo M: Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990, 6(4):142-149.
Waltimo TM, Ørstavik D, Siren EK, Haapasalo MP: In vitro susceptibility of Candida albicans to four disinfectants and their combinations. Int Endod J. 1999, 32(6):421-429.
Evans M, Davies JK, Sundqvist G, Figdor D: Mechanisms involved in the resistance of Enterococcus faecalis to calcium hydroxide. Int Endod J. 2002, 35(3):221-228.
George S, Kishen A, Song KP: The role of environmental changes on monospecies biofilm formation on root canal wall by Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2005, 31(12):867-872.
Figini L, Lodi G, Gorni F, Gagliani M: Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(4):CD005296.
Weiger R, Rosendahl R, Lost C: Influence of calcium hydroxide intracanal dressings on the prognosis of teeth with endodontically induced periapical lesions. Int Endod J. 2000, 33(3):219-226.
Soltanoff W: A comparative study of the single-visit and the multiple-visit edodontic procedure. J Endod. 1978, 4(9):278-281.
Oliet S: Single-visit endodontics: a clinical study. J Endod. 1983, 9(4):147-152.
Sjögren U, Figdor D, Persson S, Sundqvist G: Influence of infection at the time of root filling on the outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis. Int Endod J. 1997, 30(5):297-306.
Peters LB, van Winkelhoff AJ, Buijs JF, Wesselink PR: Effects of instrumentation, irrigation and dressing with calcium hydroxide on infection in pulpless teeth with periapical bone lesions. Int Endod J. 2002, 35(1):13-21.
Trope M, Delano EO, Orstavik D: Endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: single vs. multivisit treatment. J Endod. 1999, 25(5):345-350.
Vela KC, Walton RE, Trope M, Windschitl P, Caplan DJ: Patient preferences regarding 1-visit versus 2-visit root canal therapy. J Endod. 2012, 38(10):1322-1325.
Albashaireh ZS, Alnegrish AS: Postobturation pain after single- and multiple-visit endodontic therapy. A prospective study. J Dent. 1998, 26(3):227-232.
Eleazer PD, Eleazer KR: Flare-up rate in pulpally necrotic molars in one-visit versus two-visit endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1998, 24(9):614-616.
Ricucci D, Langeland K: Incomplete calcium hydroxide removal from the root canal: a case report. Int Endod J. 1997, 30(6):418-421.
Çalışkan MK, Türkün M, Türkün LS: Effect of calcium hydroxide as an intracanal dressing on apical leakage. Int Endod J. 1998, 31(3):173-177.
Barbizam JV, Trope M, Teixeira EC, Tanomaru-Filho M, Teixeira FB: Effect of calcium hydroxide intracanal dressing on the bond strength of a resin-based endodontic sealer. Braz Dent J. 2008, 19(3):224-227.
Margelos J, Eliades G, Verdelis C, Palaghias G: Interaction of calcium hydroxide with zinc oxide-eugenol type sealers: a potential clinical problem. J Endod. 1997, 23(1):43-48.
Kim SK, Kim YO: Influence of calcium hydroxide intracanal medication on apical seal. Int Endod J. 2002, 35(7):623-628.
Calt S, Serper A: Dentinal tubule penetration of root canal sealers after root canal dressing with calcium hydroxide. J Endod. 1999, 25(6):431-433.
Shimizu T, Kawakami T, Ochiai T, Kurihara S, Hasegawa H: Histopathological evaluation of subcutaneous tissue reaction in mice to a calcium hydroxide paste developed for root canal fillings. J Int Med Res. 2004, 32(4):416-421.
Ahlgren FK, Johannessen AC, Hellem S: Displaced calcium hydroxide paste causing inferior alveolar nerve paraesthesia: report of a case. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003, 96(6):734-737.
Bramante CM, Luna-Cruz SM, Sipert CR, Bernadineli N, Garcia RB, de Moraes IG, de Vasconcelos BC: Alveolar mucosa necrosis induced by utilisation of calcium hydroxide as root canal dressing. Int Dent J. 2008, 58(2):81-85.
Shahravan A, Jalali S, Mozaffari B, Pourdamghan N: Overextension of nonsetting calcium hydroxide in endodontic treatment: literature review and case report. Iran Endod J. 2012, 7(2):102-108.
Reit C, Gröndahl HG: Application of statistical decision theory to radiographic diagnosis of endodontically treated teeth. Scand J Dent Res. 1983, 91(3):213-218.
Ørstavik D, Kerekes K, Eriksen HM: The periapical index: a scoring system for radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1986, 2(1):20-34.
Halse A, Molven O: A strategy for the diagnosis of periapical pathosis. J Endod. 1986, 12(11):534-538.
Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P: Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007, 7:16.
Riaz A, Maxood A, Abdullah S, Saba K, Din SU, Zahid S: Comparison of frequency of post-obturation pain of single versus multiple visit root canal treatment of necrotic teeth with infected root canals. A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018, 68(10):1429-1433.
Rabello DGD, Corazza BJM, Ferreira LL, Santamaria MP, Gomes APM, Martinho FC: Does supplemental photodynamic therapy optimize the disinfection of bacteria and endotoxins in one-visit and two-visit root canal therapy? A randomized clinical trial. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2017, 19:205-211.
Almeida DO, Chaves SC, Souza RA, Soares FF: Outcome of Single- vs Multiple-visit Endodontic Therapy of Nonvital Teeth: A Meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017, 18(4):330-336.
Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G: Single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BMJ Open. 2017, 7(2):e013115.
Manfredi M, Figini L, Gagliani M, Lodi G: Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016, 12:CD005296.
Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G: Cost-effectiveness of Single- Versus Multistep Root Canal Treatment. J Endod. 2016, 42(10):1446-1452.
Wong AW, Tsang CS, Zhang S, Li KY, Zhang C, Chu CH: Treatment outcomes of single-visit versus multiple-visit non-surgical endodontic therapy: a randomised clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2015, 15:162.
K B: Trial suggests no difference between single-visit and two-visit root canal treatment. Evid Based Dent. 2013, 14(2):48.
Akbar I, Iqbal A, Al-Omiri MK: Flare-up rate in molars with periapical radiolucency in one-visit vs two-visit endodontic treatment. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013, 14(3):414-418.
Paredes-Vieyra J, Enriquez FJ: Success rate of single- versus two-visit root canal treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Endod. 2012, 38(9):1164-1169.
Prashanth MB, Tavane PN, Abraham S, Chacko L: Comparative evaluation of pain, tenderness and swelling followed by radiographic evaluation of periapical changes at various intervals of time following single and multiple visit endodontic therapy: an in vivo study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2011, 12(3):187-191.
Fleming CH, Litaker MS, Alley LW, Eleazer PD: Comparison of classic endodontic techniques versus contemporary techniques on endodontic treatment success. J Endod. 2010, 36(3):414-418.
Garcia de Paula-Silva FW, Hassan B, Bezerra da Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Wu MK: Outcome of root canal treatment in dogs determined by periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Endod. 2009, 35(5):723-726.
Evidenced-based review of clinical studies on the root apex. J Endod. 2009, 35(8):1158-1159.
Penesis VA, Fitzgerald PI, Fayad MI, Wenckus CS, BeGole EA, Johnson BR: Outcome of one-visit and two-visit endodontic treatment of necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis: a randomized controlled trial with one-year evaluation. J Endod. 2008, 34(3):251-257.
Witherspoon DE, Small JC, Regan JD, Nunn M: Retrospective analysis of open apex teeth obturated with mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 2008, 34(10):1171-1176.
Molander A, Warfvinge J, Reit C, Kvist T: Clinical and radiographic evaluation of one- and two-visit endodontic treatment of asymptomatic necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod. 2007, 33(10):1145-1148.
Silveira AM, Lopes HP, Siqueira JF, Jr., Macedo SB, Consolaro A: Periradicular repair after two-visit endodontic treatment using two different intracanal medications compared to single-visit endodontic treatment. Braz Dent J. 2007, 18(4):299-304.
Mohammadi Z, Farhad A, Tabrizizadeh M: One-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic therapy--a review. Int Dent J. 2006, 56(5):289-293.
Ghoddusi J, Javidi M, Zarrabi MH, Bagheri H: Flare-ups incidence and severity after using calcium hydroxide as intracanal dressing. N Y State Dent J. 2006, 72(4):24-28.
Lin NY, Gao XJ: [A short-term clinical study of one-visit endodontic treatment for infected root canals]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2006, 41(9):525-528.
Trusewicz M, Buczkowska-Radlińska J, Giedrys-Kalemba S: [The effectiveness of some methods in eliminating bacteria from the root canal of a tooth with chronic apical periodontitis]. Ann Acad Med Stetin. 2005, 51(2):43-48.
Field JW, Gutmann JL, Solomon ES, Rakusin H: A clinical radiographic retrospective assessment of the success rate of single-visit root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2004, 37(1):70-82.
Oginni A, Udoye CI: Endodontic flare-ups: comparison of incidence between single and multiple visits procedures in patients attending a Nigerian teaching hospital. Odontostomatol Trop. 2004, 27(108):23-27.
Kenrick S: Endodontics: a multiple-visit or single-visit approach. Aust Endod J. 2000, 26(2):82-85.
Trope M, Delano EO, Ørstavik D: Endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: single vs. multivisit treatment. J Endod. 1999, 25(5):345-350.
Morse DR, Esposito JV, Furst ML: Comparison of prophylactic and on-demand diflunisal for pain management of patients having one-visit endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1990, 69(6):729-736.
Ashkenaz PJ: One-visit endodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 1984, 28(4):853-863.
Miçooğulları Kurt S, Çalışkan MK: Efficacy of chlorhexidine as a final irrigant in one-visit root canal treatment: a prospective comparative study. Int Endod J. 2018, 51(10):1069-1076.
Fonzar F, Mollo A, Venturi M, Pini P, Fabian Fonzar R, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Esposito M: Single versus two visits with 1-week intracanal calcium hydroxide medication for endodontic treatment: One-year post-treatment results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017, 10(1):29-41.
Fujii R, Suehara M, Sekiya S, Miyayoshi N, Asai T, Morinaga K, Muramatsu T, Furusawa M: CBCT-based Diagnosis of Periapical Lesion of Maxillary First Premolar Mimicking That of Second Premolar. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2016, 57(4):291-297.
Bharuka SB, Mandroli PS: Single- versus two-visit pulpectomy treatment in primary teeth with apical periodontitis: A double-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2016, 34(4):383-390.
Gill GS, Bhuyan AC, Kalita C, Das L, Kataki R, Bhuyan D: Single Versus Multi-visit Endodontic Treatment of Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: An in vivo Study with 1-year Evaluation. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2016, 6(1):19-26.
Onay EO, Ungor M, Yazici AC: The evaluation of endodontic flare-ups and their relationship to various risk factors. BMC Oral Health. 2015, 15(1):142.
Wong AW, Zhang S, Li SK, Zhu X, Zhang C, Chu CH: Incidence of post-obturation pain after single-visit versus multiple-visit non-surgical endodontic treatments. BMC Oral Health. 2015, 15:96.
Akbar I: Efficacy of Prophylactic use of Antibiotics to Avoid Flare up During Root Canal Treatment of Nonvital Teeth: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015, 9(3):ZC08-11.
Wong AW, Zhu X, Zhang S, Li SK, Zhang C, Chu CH: Treatment time for non-surgical endodontic therapy with or without a magnifying loupe. BMC Oral Health. 2015, 15:40.
Triches TC, de Figueiredo LC, Feres M, de Freitas SF, Zimmermann GS, Cordeiro MM: Microbial reduction by two chemical-mechanical protocols in primary teeth with pulp necrosis and periradicular lesion - an in vivo study. Braz Dent J. 2014, 25(4):307-313.
Caronna V, Himel V, Yu Q, Zhang JF, Sabey K: Comparison of the surface hardness among 3 materials used in an experimental apexification model under moist and dry environments. J Endod. 2014, 40(7):986-989.
Raju TB, Seshadri A, Vamsipavani B, Abhilash K, Subhash AV, Kumari KV: Evaluation of pain in single and multi rooted teeth treated in single visit endodontic therapy. J Int Oral Health. 2014, 6(1):27-32.
Dorasani G, Madhusudhana K, Chinni SK: Clinical and radiographic evaluation of single-visit and multi-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with periapical pathology: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent. 2013, 16(6):484-488.
Grga D, Dzeletović B, Damjanov M, Hajduković-Dragojlović L: Prostaglandin E2 in apical tissue fluid and postoperative pain in intact and teeth with large restorations in two endodontic treatment visits. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2013, 141(1-2):17-21.
Arias A, de la Macorra JC, Hidalgo JJ, Azabal M: Predictive models of pain following root canal treatment: a prospective clinical study. Int Endod J. 2013, 46(8):784-793.
Tanalp J, Sunay H, Bayirli G: Cross-sectional evaluation of post-operative pain and flare-ups in endodontic treatments using a type of rotary instruments. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013, 71(3-4):733-739.
Asgary S, Ahmadyar M: One-visit RCT of Maxillary Incisors with Extensive Inflammatory Root Resorption and Periradicular Lesions: A Case Report. Iran Endod J. 2011, 6(2):95-98.
Iqbal M, Kurtz E, Kohli M: Incidence and factors related to flare-ups in a graduate endodontic programme. Int Endod J. 2009, 42(2):99-104.
Naito T: Single or multiple visits for endodontic treatment? Evid Based Dent. 2008, 9(1):24.
Simon S, Rilliard F, Berdal A, Machtou P: The use of mineral trioxide aggregate in one-visit apexification treatment: a prospective study. Int Endod J. 2007, 40(3):186-197.
Al-Negrish AR, Habahbeh R: Flare up rate related to root canal treatment of asymptomatic pulpally necrotic central incisor teeth in patients attending a military hospital. J Dent. 2006, 34(9):635-640.
Alptekin NO, Ari H, Haliloglu S, Alptekin T, Serpek B, Ataoglu T: The effect of endodontic therapy on periapical exudate neutrophil elastase and prostaglandin-E2 levels. J Endod. 2005, 31(11):791-795.
Imura N, Zuolo ML: Factors associated with endodontic flare-ups: a prospective study. Int Endod J. 1995, 28(5):261-265.
Wiscovitch JG, Wiscovitch GJ: Surgical apical repair with super-EBA cement: a one-visit alternative treatment to apexification. J Endod. 1995, 21(1):43-46.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6(7):e1000097.
Chu CH, Lo EC, Cheung GS: Outcome of root canal treatment using Thermafil and cold lateral condensation filling techniques. Int Endod J. 2005, 38(3):179-185.
Lucena C, Souza EM, Voinea GC, Pulgar R, Valderrama MJ, De-Deus G: A quality assessment of randomized controlled trial reports in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2017, 50(3):237-250.
Manchikanti L, Hirsch JA, Smith HS: Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 2: Randomized controlled trials. Pain Physician. 2008, 11(6):717-773.
Weiger R, Axmann-Krcmar D, Lost C: Prognosis of conventional root canal treatment reconsidered. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1998, 14(1):1-9.
Waltimo T, Trope M, Haapasalo M, Ørstavik D: Clinical efficacy of treatment procedures in endodontic infection control and one year follow-up of periapical healing. J Endod. 2005, 31(12):863-866.
Quesnell BT, Alves M, Hawkinson RW, Jr., Johnson BR, Wenckus CS, BeGole EA: The effect of human immunodeficiency virus on endodontic treatment outcome. J Endod. 2005, 31(9):633-636.
Huumonen S, Lenander-Lumikari M, Sigurdsson A, Ørstavik D: Healing of apical periodontitis after endodontic treatment: a comparison between a silicone-based and a zinc oxide-eugenol-based sealer. Int Endod J. 2003, 36(4):296-301.
Ørstavik D, Qvist V, Stoltze K: A multivariate analysis of the outcome of endodontic treatment. Eur J Oral Sci. 2004, 112(3):224-230.
Ørstavik D: Time-course and risk analyses of the development and healing of chronic apical periodontitis in man. Int Endod J. 1996, 29(3):150-155.

Due to technical limitations, tables are only available as a download in the supplemental files section

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Single-visit versus multiple-visits endodontic treatment of apical periodontitis: A meta-analysis of outcome assessed by intra oral radiographs

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

background

methods

results

discussion

conclusions

declarations

references

tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1