确定与非螯合剂相比,具有钙螯合能力的根管冲洗剂在从根管中去除氢氧化钙(CH)方面是否发挥作用。
该协议已在OpenScienceFramework注册表中注册(doi10.17605/OSF。IO/CHG2Q)。PubMed,Scopus,Embase,科克伦图书馆,ProQuest,谷歌学者,科学直接和开放的灰色数据库一直搜索到2021年3月。实验室研究比较钙螯合剂在去除CH的有效性与非螯合剂使用针灌洗输送,包括灌溉搅拌或仪器技术。纳入研究的质量使用改良的JoannaBriggs研究所关键评估清单进行随机临床试验评估。两名独立评审者参与了研究选择,数据提取,评估研究质量。任何分歧都由第三位审阅者解决。
目前的综述包括17项研究,其中16个是“中等”质量,一个是“低”质量。由于纳入研究的方法学差异,没有进行定量分析.实验室研究仅包括在当前的综述中,因为没有关于该主题的临床研究。从审查的证据表明,钙螯合剂优于非螯合剂在去除CH时使用针冲洗,被动超声灌溉和仪器技术。
钙螯合剂在从根管系统中去除CH方面优于非螯合剂。
To identify whether root canal irrigants with calcium chelation ability play a role in the removal of calcium hydroxide (CH) from the root canals when compared to non-chelators.
The protocol is registered in the Open Science Framework registry (doi 10.17605/OSF.IO/CHG2Q). PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Science direct and open grey databases were searched until March 2021. Laboratory studies comparing the effectiveness of calcium chelators in the removal of CH with non-chelators delivered using needle irrigation, irrigation agitation or instrumentation techniques were included. The quality of included studies was appraised using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for a randomised clinical trial. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction, appraising the quality of studies. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.
The current
review included 17 studies, with 16 being of \"moderate\" quality and one of \"low\" quality. Due to methodological differences within the included studies, quantitative analysis was not performed. Laboratory studies were only included in the current
review because no clinical study exists on this topic. Evidence from the
review indicates that calcium chelators are superior to non-chelators in the removal of CH when used with needle irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation and instrumentation techniques.
Calcium chelators are superior in the removal of CH from the root canal system over non-chelators.