4.7 Article

Treatment of Necrotic Teeth by Apical Revascularization: Meta-analysis

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14412-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [R01DE025643, R01DE023112, R01 AR065023, R01DE026297]
  2. Guangdong Pioneer Grant [52000-52010002]
  3. Guangdong Science and Technology Program [2016B030229003]
  4. Ministry of Science and Technology [2014DFA31990]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Each year similar to 5.4 million children and adolescents in the United States suffer from dental infections, leading to pulp necrosis, arrested tooth-root development and tooth loss. Apical revascularization, adopted by the American Dental Association for its perceived ability to enable postoperative tooth-root growth, is being accepted worldwide. The objective of the present study is to perform a meta-analysis on apical revascularization. Literature search yielded 22 studies following PRISMA with pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to account for inter-examiner variation. Following apical revascularization with 6- to 66-month recalls, root apices remained open in 13.9% cases (types I), whereas apical calcification bridge formed in 47.2% (type II) and apical closure (type III) in 38.9% cases. Tooth-root lengths lacked significant postoperative gain among all subjects (p = 0.3472) or in subgroups. Root-dentin area showed significant increases in type III, but not in types I or II cases. Root apices narrowed significantly in types II and III, but not in type I patients. Thus, apical revascularization facilitates tooth-root development but lacks consistency in promoting root lengthening, widening or apical closure. Post-operative tooth-root development in immature permanent teeth represents a generalized challenge to regenerate diseased pediatric tissues that must grow to avoid organ defects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available