“…A total of seven workers [45,50,55,62,[80][81][82] used both paper points and hand files for sample collection. Only one of them [45] used cultural methods, thus the meta-analysis could not be performed, while six of them [50,55,62,[80][81][82] used PCR, and the resulting WMP was 15.6% (CI 95%: 5.8-25.4) (Fig 5). Thirteen studies only included teeth presenting periapical lesion, with a WMP of 5.4% (CI 95%: 2.2-8.6) for cultural studies [45,47,48,51,52,57,58,65,66,72] (Fig 6) and 18.7% (CI 95%: 2.9-34.5) for molecular studies [55,64,72,78] (Fig 7).…”