Effectiveness of root canal instrumentation for the treatment of apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis ; Efectividad de la instrumentación del conducto radicular para el tratamiento de la periodontitis apical: una revisión sistemática y un metanálisis

Background: The development of endodontic instruments has rapidly advanced, but their impact on endodontic outcome parameters remains unclear. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICOT questions: In patients with apical periodontitis (P) what is the effectiveness of root canal instrumentation ([Q1] performed with contemporary techniques [I] in comparison with 'traditional' techniques [C]] and ([Q2] performed with contemporary engine-driven NiTi instruments [I] compared with other types of contemporary engine-driven NiTi instruments [with different design and/or technology] [C]) in terms of clinical and patient-related outcomes (O)? Methods: After PROSPERO protocol registration, a literature search was conducted using Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Grey literature and major journal contents were examined. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and appraisal of included studies. A quantitative meta-analysis was considered, and statistical heterogeneity and overall quality of evidence were assessed. Results: Nine studies were identified showing substantial methodological differences. Five studies addressed PICOT 1 and three PICOT 2, whereas one study aimed both. A random-effects meta-analysis model was considered for the outcome 'radiographic evidence of normal periodontal ligament space or reduction of apical lesion size' (PICOT 1) based on three studies with 332 evaluable participants and showed that contemporary instrumentation was associated with a more favourable outcome (p = .005) compared with root canal preparation with stainless steel instruments (odds ratio = 2.07 [95%-confidence interval = 1.25-3.44]) with no evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) but low quality of evidence. Discussion: Albeit a few studies fulfilled eligible criteria, no study had a low risk of bias. Compelling evidence indicating significantly different outcome rates using different ...