Display options
Cite
Congiusta M, Veitz-Keenan A. No evidence that magnification devices improve the success of endodontic therapy. Evid Based Dent. 2016;17(3):84-85doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401189.
Congiusta, M., & Veitz-Keenan, A. (2016). No evidence that magnification devices improve the success of endodontic therapy. Evidence-based dentistry, 17(3), 84-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401189
Congiusta, Marie, and Veitz-Keenan, Analia. "No evidence that magnification devices improve the success of endodontic therapy." Evidence-based dentistry vol. 17,3 (2016): 84-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401189
Congiusta M, Veitz-Keenan A. No evidence that magnification devices improve the success of endodontic therapy. Evid Based Dent. 2016 Sep;17(3):84-85. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401189. PMID: 27767122.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Evid Based Dent. 2016 Sep;17(3):84-85. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401189.

No evidence that magnification devices improve the success of endodontic therapy.

Evidence-based dentistry

Marie Congiusta, Analia Veitz-Keenan

Affiliations

  1. New York University, College of Dentistry, New York, USA.

PMID: 27767122 DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401189

Abstract

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, WHO-Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.Study selectionOnly randomised and quasi-randomised studies were pursued. No restrictions were placed on language or date of publication. The primary outcome sought was treatment success (complete healing or incomplete healing), uncertain healing and failure after one year of treatment, between one and four years and more than four years after treatment. Secondary outcomes considered for the inclusion criteria included outcomes related to the advantage of using a given magnification device in the clinical procedure such as; greater accuracy, the ease of removing broken instruments from the canal, quality of visualisation, quality of root end filling for the retrograde treatment, quality of perforation repair and the total time required for completing the clinical procedure.Data extraction and synthesisData would have been extracted by two review authors independently using a standardised data extraction form, and any disagreement would have been resolved by discussion and a third reviewer would have been consulted. Two review authors would have independently undertaken an assessment of the risk of bias.ResultsThe searches retrieved 1,234 studies. None of these satisfied the selection criteria, therefore no analysis was completed.ConclusionsNo article was identified in the current literature for the review that satisfied the inclusion criteria. It is unknown if and how the type of magnification device affects the treatment outcome considering the high number of factors that may have a significant impact on the success of endodontic therapy.

References

  1. J Endod. 2008 Jul;34(7):804-7 - PubMed
  2. J Dent. 2010 Apr;38(4):269-75 - PubMed
  3. BMC Oral Health. 2015 Mar 20;15:40 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types