4.5 Review

A scoping review of root canal revascularization: relevant aspects for clinical success and tissue formation

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 50, Issue 9, Pages 860-874

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iej.12711

Keywords

dental pulp necrosis; immature permanent teeth; root canal revascularization; scoping review; scoping study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this scoping study was to evaluate the survival rate and nature of tissue formed inside root canals of human immature permanent teeth with necrotic pulps (NIPT) under root canal revascularization (RCR). The search was performed in SciVerse Scopus (R), PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science (R), BIREME and in the grey literature up to November 2015. The keywords were selected using MeSH terms and DECs. Two independent reviewers scrutinized the records obtained considering specific inclusion criteria. The included studies were evaluated in accordance with a modified Arksey and O' Malley's framework. From 375 studies that were evaluated, 75 were included. A total of 367 NIPT were submitted to RCR, from which only 21 needed further endodontic treatment. The weighted mean follow-up time was 17.6 months. The data were derived mainly from case reports (69%) or small case series (15%). NaOCl [0.5-6%] was applied as the disinfecting solution in almost all studies. Triple antibiotic paste was as effective as Ca(OH)(2) as on intracanal medicament. De novo tissue was cementum and poorly mineralized bone positive to bone sialoprotein (BSP) but negative to dentine sialoprotein (DSP). Failures were associated mainly with reinfection of the root canal. The majority of included studies reported a significant increase in both root length and width. However, as most of these data came from case reports, they must be interpreted with care, as most were focused on treatment successes (not failures). Therefore, well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing RCR with available apexification treatments are needed to address this gap in the literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available