Effectiveness of different root-end filling materials in modern surgical endodontic treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background/purpose: There is controversial evidence on the best choice for root-end filling materials in follow-up periods and treatment protocols. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different root-end filling materials in modern surgical endodontic treatment. Materials and methods: A total of 16 studies with a minimum follow-up of 12-months were qualified to be reviewed, involving randomized control trials and observational studies in PubMed, Cochrane library and Scopus until September 1, 2021. The outcome of modern surgical endodontic treatment was assessed based on clinical and radiographic success. Direct comparisons were combined to estimate indirect comparisons, and the estimated effect size was analyzed using the odds ratio (OR). The comparative effectiveness of all materials for target outcomes were shown as P-score. Results: Within this network meta-analysis, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) had superior effects among all root-end filling materials at 12-months follow-up. (MTA: OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 0.84–4.91; P-score, 0.86; reference material, gutta-percha). In further sensitivity analyses, MTA, calcium silicate-based root repair material (RRM) and super EBA cement (Super EBA) were associated with significantly higher success rates at 12-months follow-up. (MTA: OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 1.58–19.99; P-score, 0.88; RRM: OR, 5.23; 95% CI, 1.05–25.98; P-score, 0.74; Super EBA: OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.06–15.04; P-score, 0.54; reference material, gutta-percha). Conclusion: MTA remains the best choice for root-end filling materials of modern surgical endodontic treatment at the 12-month follow-up. Comparative randomized clinical trials in the long-term follow-up are warranted in future investigations.

Keywords

• Endodontic surgery
• Evidence-based dentistry
• Meta-analysis
• Root-end filling materials