No abstract

No abstract

Aim This cross‐sectional study aimed to investigate the microbial profile and to quantify the levels of endotoxins (LPS) and lipoteichoic acid (LTA) present in periapical lesions associated with root filled teeth and those that had received root canal retreatment. It also aimed to investigate the association between microorganisms and their virulence factors with clinical and radiographic features. Methodology Patients with periapical lesions in teeth with post‐treatment endodontic disease following primary root canal treatment (n = 19) and unsuccessful root canal retreatment (n = 13) were treatment planned for endodontic microsurgery, where the periapical lesions were collected. Clinical and radiographic data were also collected. For microbiological analysis, nested polymerase chain reaction was used to detect 17 bacterial species. Levels of LPS and LTA were determined using limulus amebocyte lysate and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, respectively. The Student t‐test or Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were applied to compare the data on LPS and LTA with clinical and radiographic features. The associations between the clinical and radiographic features and the bacterial species were analysed using the Fisher’s exact test. A significance level of 5% was adopted. Results Bacterial DNA, LPS and LTA were detected in all samples. Parvimonas micra was the most commonly detected species in all groups, followed by Enterococcus faecalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas endodontalis. The type of endodontic treatment, whether a primary root canal treatment or retreatment, was not associated with the presence of any bacterial species in periapical lesions. The levels of LPS and LTA in periapical lesions of root filled teeth were not significantly different from those that had been retreated. Associations between the levels of LPS and LTA with clinical signs and symptoms were found. No association was found between specific bacteria and clinical features. Conclusion Periapical lesions associated with teeth after primary root canal treatment and retreatment had similar polymicrobial composition. The levels of LPS and LTA in periapical lesions associated with teeth after primary root canal treatment and retreatment were similar, and both were associated with the same symptomatology.

BackgroundAdjunct therapy refers to any intracanal procedure going beyond chemomechanical preparation with instruments and traditionally delivered irrigants (excluding interim dressings). It is not clear whether and which of these adjunct therapies have a significant impact on the outcome of root canal treatment [healing of apical periodontitis (AP) and other patient‐related outcomes].ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to analyse available evidence on the effectiveness of adjunct therapy for the treatment of AP in permanent teeth, according to a population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time and study design framework formulated a priori by the European Society of Endodontology.MethodsFive electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science) were searched up to October 2021 to identify clinical studies comparing adjunct therapy to no adjunct therapy in adult patients with AP. Animal studies, reviews, studies with less than 10 patients per arm and studies with a follow‐up time of less than 1 year, or less than 7 days for postoperative pain, were excluded. The quality of the included studies was appraised by the appropriate tools [Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies]. Meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsFourteen studies (13 RCTs and one retrospective cohort) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. They evaluated different types of adjunct therapy: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT; three studies), diode laser canal irradiation (3), Nd:YAG laser canal irradiation (2), Er;Cr:YSGG laser canal irradiation (1), ozone therapy (2) and ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) (4). Radiographical healing was reported in seven studies, but meta‐analysis was only possible for UAI (two studies), showing no statistically significant difference in healing after 12 months. Pain after 7 days was reported in seven studies. Meta‐analysis on three studies that used aPDT and on two studies using diode laser irradiation showed no significant difference in the prevalence of pain after 7 days between the control and adjunct therapy. According to RoB2 tool, six studies had a high risk of bias, five studies had some concerns, and two studies low risk of bias. The GRADE assessment revealed a very low strength of evidence for diode laser, and low strength of evidence for PDT, ozone and UAI studies.DiscussionThe included studies displayed significant heterogeneity in terms of type of adjunct therapy, technical details per adjunct therapy, outcome reporting and several combinations of these, limiting the potential for meta‐analysis.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend any adjunctive therapy for the treatment of apical periodontitis.RegistrationProspero CRD42021261869.