首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Endodontics: Official Journal of American Association of Endodontists >Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature--part 1: Comparison of traditional root-end surgery and endodontic microsurgery.
【24h】

Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature--part 1: Comparison of traditional root-end surgery and endodontic microsurgery.

机译:牙髓手术的结果:对文献的荟萃分析-第1部分:传统的根端手术和牙髓显微手术的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of root-end surgery. The specific outcome of traditional root-end surgery (TRS) versus endodontic microsurgery (EMS) and the probability of success for comparison of the 2 techniques were determined by means of meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. METHODS: An intensive search of the literature was conducted to identify longitudinal studies evaluating the outcome of root-end surgery. Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and PubMed) were searched to identify human studies from 1966 to October 2009 in 5 different languages (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish). Relevant articles and review papers were searched for cross-references. Five pertinent journals (Journal of Endodontics, International Endodontic Journal, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) were individually searched back to 1975. Three independent reviewers (S.S., M.K., and F.S.) assessed the abstracts of all articles that were found according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant articles were acquired in full-text form, and raw data were extracted independently by each reviewer. Qualifying papers were assigned to group TRS or group EMS. Weighted pooled success rates and relative risk assessment between TRS and EMS were calculated. A comparison between the groups was made by using a random effects model. RESULTS: Ninety-eight articles were identified and obtained for final analysis. In total, 21 studies qualified (12 for TRS [n = 925] and 9 for EMS [n = 699]) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Weighted pooled success rates calculated from extracted raw data showed 59% positive outcome for TRS (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.6308) and 94% for EMS (95% confidence interval, 0.8889-0.9816). This difference was statistically significant (P < .0005). The relative risk ratio showed that the probability of success for EMS was 1.58 times the probability of success for TRS. CONCLUSIONS: The use of microsurgical techniques is superior in achieving predictably high success rates for root-end surgery when compared with traditional techniques.
机译:简介:这项研究的目的是调查根端手术的结果。传统的根端手术(TRS)与牙髓显微外科手术(EMS)的具体结果以及两种技术的比较成功的可能性通过荟萃分析和系统的文献综述来确定。方法:对文献进行大量搜索,以鉴定评估根端手术结果的纵向研究。搜索了三个电子数据库(Medline,Embase和PubMed),以5种不同的语言(英语,法语,德语,意大利语和西班牙语)识别从1966年到2009年10月的人体研究。搜索相关文章和评论文件以查找交叉引用。自1975年以来分别检索了五本相关期刊(牙髓学杂志,国际牙髓学杂志,口腔外科口腔医学,口腔病理学,口腔放射学和牙髓学,口腔颌面外科杂志,国际口腔颌面外科杂志)。三名独立审稿人(SS ,MK和FS)评估了根据预定义的包含和排除标准找到的所有文章的摘要。以全文形式获取相关文章,并由每个审阅者独立提取原始数据。将合格论文分配给TRS组或EMS组。计算了加权合并成功率以及TRS和EMS之间的相对风险评估。使用随机效应模型对两组之间进行比较。结果:鉴定并获得了98篇文章用于最终分析。根据纳入和排除标准,总共有21项研究合格(TRS [n = 925] 12项,EMS [n = 699] 9项)。根据提取的原始数据计算得出的加权合并成功率显示,TRS的阳性结果为59%(95%置信区间,0.55-0.6308),EMS的94%(95%置信区间,0.8889-0.9816)。这种差异具有统计学意义(P <.0005)。相对风险比表明,EMS成功的可能性是TRS成功的可能性的1.58倍。结论:与传统技术相比,显微外科技术的使用在根端手术的可预见的高成功率上具有优势。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号