Aim To assess the impact of two root canal treatment protocols on the oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients in need of root canal treatment on their anterior teeth. Methodology The sample consisted of 120 participants (mean age: 34 years) enrolled in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial evaluating two root canal treatment protocols. Anterior teeth with nonvital pulps were allocated for root canal preparation with either hand files and filled with lateral compaction of gutta‐percha (manual protocol) or canal preparation with a single file in a reciprocating movement and filled with a single cone technique (Reciproc protocol). OHRQoL data were assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile instrument (OHIP‐14), which was administered before the root canal intervention (baseline), and 6 and 12 months after treatment. Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants were collected at baseline. Data were analysed using bivariate analyses, Poisson univariate and multiple regression (α = 0.05). Results The drop‐out rate from baseline was 27% and 28% at 6 and 12 months after treatment, respectively. Both root canal protocols significantly enhanced patients' OHRQoL, regardless of the follow‐up time (P < 0.001). After 6 months, patients treated with the Reciproc protocol had significantly lower OHIP‐14 overall scores (P = 0.030), as well as significantly lower scores for psychological discomfort (P = 0.031) and social disability (P = 0.013). After 12 months, no significant difference was observed between the two root canal protocols for OHIP‐14 overall scores (P = 0.174). Either large or moderate effect sizes were observed for all domains and overall scores at both evaluation times, irrespective of the protocol. Low‐income persons (RR = 2.03) and the Reciproc protocol (RR = 1.52) had a higher likelihood of a positive impact on OHRQoL 12 months after root canal treatment. Conclusions The two root canal protocols improved the OHRQoL and differences in scores were observed only after 6 months with poorer OHRQoL for the manual protocol. After 12 months, patients with low‐income status and treated with Reciproc were associated with a greater improvement in OHRQoL scores.

Abstract

No abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to search for scientific evidence concerning the accuracy of computer-assisted analysis for diagnosing maxillofacial radiolucent lesions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the statements of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols and considering 10 databases, including the gray literature. Protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018089945). The population, intervention, comparison and outcome strategy was used to define the eligibility criteria and only diagnostic test studies were included. Their risk of bias was assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed and heterogeneity among the included studies was estimated using the I2 statistic. The grade of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) tool assessed the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation across included studies. Results: Out of 715 identified citations, four papers, published between 2009 and 2017, fulfilled the criteria and were included in this systematic review. A total of 191 lesions, classified as periapical granuloma and cyst, dentigerous cyst or keratocystic odontogenic tumor, were analyzed. All selected articles scored low risk of bias. The pooled accuracy estimation, regardless of the classification method used, was 88.75% (95% CI = 85.19-92.30). Heterogeneity test reached moderate values (I2 = 57.89%). According to the GRADE tool, the analyzed outcome was classified as having low level of certainty. Conclusions: The overall evaluation showed all studies presented high accuracy rates of computer-aided diagnosis systems in classifying radiolucent maxillofacial lesions compared to histopathological biopsy. However, due to the moderate heterogeneity found among the studies included in this meta-analysis, a pragmatic recommendation about the use of computer-assisted analysis is not possible.

No abstract