...
首页> 外文期刊>Acta odontologica Scandinavica. >Passive ultrasonic irrigation in root canal: systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Passive ultrasonic irrigation in root canal: systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:根管中的被动超声灌溉:系统评论和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective: To investigate whether there are differences between the root canal disinfection, comparing the passive ultrasonic irrigation technique with the conventional technique. Materials and methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Pubmed; VHL; Web of Sciences and OVID with no publication date restriction. The study's quality evaluation was carried out using the Handbook by Cochrane. The online research identified 5464 studies. From the nine studies selected for a full reading of the text, five were included in the present systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed in three articles, which evaluated the root canal's cleanness through microbiological analysis. Results: Only one article concluded that the ultrasonic passive irrigation showed a better performance compared with the conventional irrigation. None of the articles analyzed presented a low risk of bias in all domains. According to the results of the meta-analysis, there was no statistical difference between the groups (OR = 0.34, IC 95%: 0.10-1.19). Conclusions: The level of evidence comparing the two techniques is fragile since in all studies some type of bias was observed which may interfere in the results and conclusions.
机译:目的:探讨根管消毒之间是否存在差异,比较了传统技术的被动超声灌溉技术。材料和方法:搜索以下电子数据库:PubMed; VHL;科学网站和OVID,没有出版日期限制。研究的质量评估是使用Cochrane使用手册进行的。在线研究确定了5464项研究。从所选的九项研究中进行全面阅读文本,其中五个被列入本系统审查。在三种制品中进行META分析,通过微生物分析评估根管的清洁。结果:只有一篇文章的结论是,与传统灌溉相比,超声波被动灌溉显示出更好的性能。任何分析的文章都没有呈现所有域中的低偏差风险。根据Meta分析的结果,组之间没有统计学差异(或= 0.34,IC 95%:0.10-19)。结论:比较两种技术的证据水平是脆弱的,因为在所有研究中观察到某种类型的偏差,这可能干扰结果和结论。

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