Abstract
Abstract
Background
Full pulpotomy has been proposed as an alternative to root canal treatment in teeth with signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis (IRP), but the evidence is limited, relying on underpowered studies with a high risk of bias. The aim of this study is to conduct a prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of individual participant data of a series of individual randomised trials to provide robust evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulpotomy compared with root canal treatment.
Methods
Individual participant data will be obtained from a series of randomised trials designed and conducted by a consortium of multi-national investigators with an interest in vital pulp treatment. These individualised trials will be conducted using a specified protocol, defined outcomes, and outcome measures. Ten parallel-group randomised trials currently being conducted in 10 countries will provide data from more than 500 participants. The primary outcome is a composite measure defined as (1) the absence of pain indicative of IRP, (2) the absence of signs and symptoms indicative of acute or chronic apical periodontitis, and (3) the absence of radiographic evidence of failure including radiolucency or resorption. Individual participant data will be obtained, assessed, and checked for quality by two independent reviewers prior to the PMA. Pooled estimates on treatment effects will be generated using a 2-stage meta-analysis approach. The first stage involves a standard regression analysis in each trial to produce aggregate data on treatment effect estimates followed by an inverse variance weighted meta-analysis to combine these aggregate data and produce summary statistics and forest plots. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the composite outcome will be undertaken as a process evaluation to evaluate treatment fidelity and acceptability by patients and dentists.
Results
The research question and trial protocol were developed and approved by investigators in all 10 sites. All sites use shared resources including study protocols, data collection forms, participant information leaflets, and consent forms in order to improve flow, consistency, and reproducibility. Each site obtained its own Institutional Review Board approval, and trials were registered in appropriate open access platforms. Patient recruitment has started in most sites, as of July 2023.
Discussion
PMA offers a rigorous, flexible, and efficient methodology to answer this important research question and provide results with improved generalisability and external validity compared with traditional trials and retrospective meta-analyses. The results of this study will have implications for both the delivery of clinical practice and structured clinical guidelines’ development.
Trial registration
PROSPERO CRD42023446809. Registered on 08 February 2023.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference30 articles.
1. Currie CC, Stone SJ, Connolly J, Durham J. Dental pain in the medical emergency department: a cross-sectional study. J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44:105–11.
2. Bjørndal L, Laustsen MH, Reit C. Root canal treatment in Denmark is most often carried out in carious vital molar teeth and retreatments are rare. Int Endod J. 2006;39(10):785–90.
3. American Association of Endodontists. Glossary of endodontic terms. 2020. Available at: https://www.aae.org/specialty/clinical-resources/glossary-endodontic-terms. Accessed 24 July 2023.
4. Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature - part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J. 2007;40:921–39.
5. Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J. 2008;41:6–31.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献