Cochrane · intervention · CD005517

Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy

Li, H, Guo, Z, Li, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library

Oral Health Endodontics and dental trauma3 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed

Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

as reported

No studies 6 · 37.5%Ungraded 3 · 18.8%Very low 7 · 43.8%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

Element	Planned (methods)	Found (results)
Population	Participants for whom orthograde root canal filling or retreatment was not possible and where periapical surgery was used to save the tooth; no age or gender limitations	Patients needing retrograde filling (1399 participants, 1471 teeth; over 17 years of age; studies published 1995 to 2019); five European, one American, two Asian studies
Intervention	Retrograde obturation with any material	Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA); Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA); Dentine-bonded resin composite; Glass ionomer cement
Comparison	Retrograde obturation with any material other than that used in the intervention group	Intermediate restorative material (IRM); Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA); Glass ionomer cement; Amalgam; Root repair material (RRM)
Outcomes	Success rate (clinical or radiological methods; minimum 12 months follow-up); Adverse events	Success rate (n=8 studies; 1-, 2-, 4- and 5-year follow-up); Adverse events (n=0, not assessed)
Study designs	Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster, split-mouth and cross-over RCTs	Randomised controlled trials (n=8)
Timing	Minimum follow-up 12 months	1-year follow-up (n=8); 2-year (n=1); 4-year (n=1); 5-year (n=1)

Search date: 2021-04. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library; ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; Chinese BioMedical Literature Database; VIP; China National…

Questions and results

Show all 3 versions

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Population: Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery used to save the tooth); no age or gender limitations

3 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Adverse events same question in other reviews	Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies	0 studies	No studies
Success rate at 1 year 1 year same question in other reviews	RR 1.09 [0.97, 1.22] 806 per 1000 vs 879 per 1000	2 studies	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Success rate at 2 years 2 years same question in other reviews	RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.20]	1 study	Ungraded

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA)

3 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Success rate at 4 years 4 years same question in other reviews	RR 1.02 [0.93, 1.12]	1 study	Ungraded
Adverse events same question in other reviews	Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies	0 studies	No studies
Success rate at 1 year 1 year same question in other reviews	RR 1.03 [0.96, 1.10] 931 per 1000 vs 959 per 1000	1 study	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

2 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Success rate at 1 year 1 year same question in other reviews	RR 0.90 [0.80, 1.01] 906 per 1000 vs 815 per 1000	1 study	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events same question in other reviews	Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies	0 studies	No studies

Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement

3 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Success rate at 1 year (root as unit, per-protocol analysis) 1 year · Root as unit of analysis (radiological), per-protocol (PP) same question in other reviews	RR 1.59 [1.20, 2.09] 519 per 1000 vs 825 per 1000	1 study	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events same question in other reviews	Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies	0 studies	No studies
Success rate at 1 year (tooth/participant as unit, per-protocol analysis) 1 year · Tooth as unit of analysis, per-protocol (PP) same question in other reviews	RR 2.39 [1.60, 3.59] 306 per 1000 vs 731 per 1000	1 study	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam

3 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Adverse events same question in other reviews	Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies	0 studies	No studies
Success rate at 5 years 5 years same question in other reviews	RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20]	1 study	Ungraded
Success rate at 1 year 1 year same question in other reviews	RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] 904 per 1000 vs 886 per 1000	1 study	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Root repair material (RRM)

2 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Adverse events same question in other reviews	Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies	0 studies	No studies
Success rate at 1 year 1 year same question in other reviews	RR 1.00 [0.94, 1.07] 933 per 1000 vs 896 per 1000	2 studies	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision