Cochrane · intervention · CD005969
Magnification devices for endodontic therapy
Del Fabbro, M, Taschieri, S, Lodi, G, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
12
Included studies
0
as reported
No studies 12 · 100%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%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 | Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least one year after treatment | None (no eligible studies included) |
| Intervention | Surgical or non-surgical endodontic treatment performed with the aid of one or more types of magnification devices, compared with the same intervention without visual enhancers; trials comparing one magnification device with another were also included | None (no eligible studies included) |
| Comparison | The same kind of endodontic intervention performed without visual enhancers (or a different magnification device) | None (no eligible studies included) |
| Outcomes | Primary: success of treatment (clinical assessment of signs and symptoms combined with periapical radiographic healing). Secondary: possibility and ease of removing broken instruments from the canal; quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology; quality of root-end filling (retrograde treatment); possibility of perforation repair; total time required to complete the clinical procedure | None (no eligible studies included) |
| Study designs | All RCTs and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing endodontic therapy with versus without one or more magnification devices, or comparing two or more magnification devices used as an adjunct to endodontic therapy | None (no eligible studies included) |
| Timing | At least one year after treatment | None (no eligible studies included) |
Search date: 2015-10. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 13 October 2015); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 13 October 2015); US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov); WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform
Questions and results
Show all 3 versionsEndodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)
Population: Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Removal of broken (fractured) instruments from the root canal | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Repair of root perforations | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Quality of root-end filling (retrograde/surgical treatment) | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Total time required to complete the clinical procedure | No included study assessed procedure time; such outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Treatment success (resolution of clinical signs and symptoms with periapical radiographic healing) >=1 year after treatment | None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and therefore no data analysis was conducted (three potentially eligible trials were identified from 1234 records; all were excluded). | NR | No studies |
Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device
Population: Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Quality of root-end filling (retrograde/surgical treatment) | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Repair of root perforations | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Total time required to complete the clinical procedure | No included study assessed procedure time. In the excluded trial Taschieri 2008, based on the operators' experience, completing the surgical procedure took on average four to five minutes longer for the endoscope than… | NR | No studies |
Treatment success (resolution of clinical signs and symptoms with periapical radiographic healing) >=1 year after treatment | None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria; the only trial comparing three magnification devices (Taschieri 2008) was excluded, so no data analysis was conducted. | NR | No studies |
Removal of broken (fractured) instruments from the root canal | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |