A review on vital pulp therapy in primary teeth

Comparative in vitro evaluation of remaining dentine thickness following instrumentation with hand and rotary endodontic files during pulpectomy in primary molars: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare the remaining dentine thickness (RDT) following instrumentation with hand and rotary endodontic files during pulpectomy in primary molars. Research question was 'Is there any difference between the remaining dentine thickness following instrumentation with hand and rotary endodontic files during pulpectomy in primary molars?'.

METHODS

Electronic Databases like MEDLINE PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, Google scholar and grey literature were searched between January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2022 for in vitro and ex vivo studies that compared hand and rotary endodontic instrumentation to evaluate the RDT in primary molars. Articles published in English or which could be translated into English were searched. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using the Revised, validated version of MINORS criteria.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in qualitative analysis. All included studies showed low risk of bias. Six studies showed more RDT with rotary instrumentation compared to manual instrumentation. Whereas, five studies showed variable results for RDT with manual and rotary instrumentation at different levels of root canals. One study showed no significant difference between manual and rotary instrumentation. In view of methodological heterogeneity of the findings, a meta-analysis was not conducted.

CONCLUSION

High quality of evidence based on low risk of bias was found in all the included studies. Statistically, rotary instrumentation showed more RDT than manual instrumentation according to majority of studies. Despite the shortcomings of this systematic review, it is possible to infer that the use of rotary instrumentation provides more RDT and thus there is considerable conservation of tooth structure.

Zirconia Crowns for Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the literature regarding the clinical performance of zirconia crowns for primary teeth. Materials and Methods: Four electronic databases, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Clinical, observational, and laboratory studies were included. Studies that assessed the performance of zirconia crowns for primary teeth using outcomes such as gingival and periodontal health, parental satisfaction, color stability, crown retention, contour, fracture resistance, marginal integrity, surface roughness, and recurrent caries were included. Risk of bias was assessed using different assessment tools depending on the type of the assessed study. Results: Out of the 2400 retrieved records, 73 full-text records were assessed for eligibility. Thirty-six studies were included for qualitative analysis. The included studies reported that zirconia crowns for primary teeth were associated with better gingival and periodontal health, good retention, high fracture resistance, color stability, high parental acceptance, good marginal adaptation, smooth cosmetic surface, and no recurrent caries. Conclusion: Zirconia crowns are promising alternative to other restorative materials and crowns in the field of pediatric dentistry. They showed higher properties and performance in different clinical aspects and great parental satisfaction.