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
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
16
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
6
Included studies
8
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
Current version onlyMineral 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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | 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 | RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA)
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Success rate at 4 years 4 years | RR 1.02 [0.93, 1.12] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Adverse events | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | 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)
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | 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 | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement
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
| 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) | 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 | 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) | 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
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 5 years 5 years | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | 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)
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | RR 1.00 [0.94, 1.07] 933 per 1000 vs 896 per 1000 | 2 studies | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events | Adverse events were not reported. | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 2 years 2 years | RR 1.06 [0.89, 1.25] | 1 study · 86 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | RR 1.09 [0.97, 1.22] 806 per 1000 vs 879 per 1000 | 2 studies | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA)
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | RR 1.03 [0.96, 1.10] 931 per 1000 vs 959 per 1000 | 1 study · 192 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events | Adverse events were not reported. | 0 studies | No studies |
Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) 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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events | Adverse events were not reported. | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | RR 0.90 [0.80, 1.01] 906 per 1000 vs 815 per 1000 | 1 study | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Success rate at 1 year (tooth/participant as unit, per-protocol analysis) 1 year · Participants as unit of analysis, per-protocol (PP) | RR 2.39 [1.60, 3.59] 306 per 1000 vs 731 per 1000 | 1 study · 122 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events | Adverse events were not reported. | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 1 year (root as unit, per-protocol analysis) 1 year · Root as unit of analysis (radiological), per-protocol (PP) | RR 1.59 [1.20, 2.09] 519 per 1000 vs 825 per 1000 | 1 study | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam
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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Success rate at 5 years 5 years | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] 854 per 1000 vs 854 per 1000 | 1 study | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events | Adverse events were not reported. | 0 studies | No studies |
Success rate at 1 year 1 year | RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] | 1 study | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Retrograde obturation with any material (other than amalgam) vs Retrograde obturation with any other material (including amalgam)
Population: Patients for whom orthograde root canal filling or retreatment is ineligible and periapical surgery is used to save the tooth; no age or gender limitations
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical symptoms and signs (treatment failure: pain, pain on percussion or palpation, tenderness, increased tooth mobility, sinus tract formation, or other subjective discomfort) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Radiographic outcome (status of periapical bone regeneration and apical absorption) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |