Influence of sealer type on treatment outcome of teeth with apical periodontitis: a systematic review

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of this article was to Evaluate the influence of sealer on the outcome of non-surgical endodontic treatment or retreatment of permanent teeth with apical periodontitis (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020205951). Methodology: A systematic review of original clinical studies was carried out following PRISMA guidelines to answer whether the type of sealer used in endodontic treatment or retreatment influences the repair of apical periodontitis determined by clinical and radiographic parameters. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database, until May 2023. Gray literature and a hand search of reference lists were also performed. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB2 for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for prospective and retrospective cohort and case-control studies. Results: Among 1046 studies, a total of 819 were selected by title and abstract, resulting in 23 for full-text review. In total, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria (1467 patients/teeth with apical periodontitis). The quality assessment using RoB2 included five randomized control trials, of which four had medium risk and one had a low risk of bias. According to the NOS scale, five studies were classified as low risk and one study was considered as medium risk of bias. The sealer type and obturation techniques varied, and the mean follow-up time was 3.7 years. Most studies used two-dimensional radiographic criteria to assess the treatment outcome sealers and not cements. Eight studies did not find significant differences when comparing cements. The healing rates ranged from 56.7% to 90%. Conclusions: The results of this review support that the current endodontic sealers do not seem to influence the treatment outcome of permanent teeth with apical periodontitis. Although the studies had medium and low risk of bias, the results should be interpreted with caution. More randomized studies of long-term outcomes comparing filling materials are needed to strengthen this claim and allow for a meta-analysis.