INTRODUCTION: The success rates of NS-ReTx have varied across decades of prior research. Nonetheless, recent endodontic advances have substantially enhanced case management. This systematic review aimed to identify rigorous studies on contemporary NS-ReTx, investigating both periapical healing-evaluated strictly for complete resolution or loosely for size reduction of periapical radiolucency-and success, denoting clinical normalcy combined with periapical healing. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature from January 1988 to December 2022. Article selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 3 reviewers. Selected studies underwent risk of bias assessment, and evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analysis and meta-regression established pooled outcome rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and significant clinical prognostic factors (P < .05). RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included. Pooled periapical healing rates using strict and loose criteria were 78.8% (95% CI: 75.2-82.4) and 87.5% (95% CI: 83.8-91.2), respectively. Pooled success rates using strict and loose criteria were 78.0% (95% CI: 74.9-81.2) and 86.4% (95% CI: 82.6-90.1), respectively. Meta-regression analyses revealed significant influences on NS-ReTx outcomes (P < .05), including periapical status, lesion size, apical root filling extent, and follow-up duration. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary NS-ReTx shows encouraging outcomes, achieving periapical healing and success rates ranging from approximately 78% (strict criteria) to 87% (loose criteria). The absence of or smaller preoperative lesions, adequate root filling length, and extended follow-ups significantly improve NS-ReTx outcomes. Integrating these factors into treatment planning is pivotal for optimizing the outcome of NS-ReTx.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sabeti et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: