Postoperative Pain following Root Canal Filling with Bioceramic vs. Traditional Filling Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate postoperative pain (POP) following root canal filling (RCF) with gutta-percha/bioceramic sealer (BCS) vs. gutta-percha/traditional sealer (TS) techniques. Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials. Subgroup analyses were performed for analgesic intake, flare-ups, postoperative time (24/48 h), pulp status, and retreatment. The search yielded 682 records, and nine studies were selected. BCS was associated with significantly lower POP vs. TS at 24 h (P = 0.04) and 48 h (P = 0.0005). In addition, non-significant trends favoring BCS for analgesic intake at 24 h (P = 0.14), flare-ups (P = 0.24) and obturation techniques at 24 h (P = 0.41) and 48 h (P = 0.33), non-significant trends for lower POP with TS vs. BCS 24 h and 48 h in vital teeth (P = 0.50, P = 0.18, respectively), and for lower POP with BCS vs. TS in non-vital teeth at 24 h and 48 h (P = 0.16, P = 0.84, respectively). POP was numerically lower with TS vs. BCS at 24 h (P = 0.65) and 48 h after retreatment (P = 0.59). Moreover, POP did not vary between fillers when the treatment was over single (P = 0.28) or multiple visits (P = 0.50). BCS was associated with significantly lower short-term POP, and with a trend for lower analgesic intake and flare-up incidence, as compared to TS.

Download Full-text

Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology ◽

10.1093/jcag/gwy033 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 105-117 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Nauzer Forbes ◽

Levi Frehlich ◽

Matthew T James ◽

Robert J Hilsden ◽

Gilaad G Kaplan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Fixed Effects Model ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Subgroup Analyses

Abstract Background and Aims Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented through colonoscopic polypectomy, but this exposes patients to risks, including delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Endoscopists increasingly use clips prophylactically with the aim of preventing DPPB. However, clips are costly, and data to support their efficacy in this context are inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping for preventing DPPB. Methods We searched electronic databases and other relevant sources for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping for the prevention of DPPB. Pooled relative risks were determined using a fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Results A total of 2305 citations were initially screened. Seven randomized controlled trials satisfied all criteria for inclusion. The quality of included studies was generally low to moderate. A total of 2851 patients underwent 5405 polypectomies. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding occurred at an overall pooled rate of 2.5%. No overall benefit of clipping for preventing DPPB was observed, with a pooled relative risk of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.36). No significant patient or polyp factors predicting DPPB were found through subgroup analyses. No publication bias was identified. Conclusions Randomized trials to date do not demonstrate a protective effect of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of DPPB, and therefore, the practice of routine prophylactic clipping appears unjustified. Additional high quality randomized trials are required to identify higher-risk groups that may benefit from prophylactic clipping.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Perioperative single dose systemic dexamethasone for postoperative pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.13272050.14704056 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Patricia Lavand'homme

Keyword(s):

Single Dose ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Transversus abdominis plane block to ameliorate postoperative pain outcomes after laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.718246145.793511432 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Jan Jakobsson

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block ◽

Transversus Abdominis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Transversus Abdominis Plane ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Pain Outcomes

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Efficacy and safety of short-term dual- versus mono-antiplatelet therapy in patients with ischemic stroke or TIA: a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.726653433.793538011 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Jose Biller ◽

Michael Schneck

Keyword(s):

Ischemic Stroke ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Antiplatelet Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Short Term ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Dual Versus

Download Full-text

The Effects of L-Carnitine Supplementation on Serum Lipids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Current Pharmaceutical Design ◽

10.2174/1381612825666190830154336 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 25 (30) ◽

pp. 3266-3281 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Hadis Fathizadeh ◽

Alireza Milajerdi ◽

Željko Reiner ◽

Fariba Kolahdooz ◽

Maryam Chamani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Serum Lipids ◽

Ldl Cholesterol ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Hdl Cholesterol ◽

Health Conditions ◽

Carnitine Supplementation ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Cholesterol Levels ◽

Vldl Cholesterol ◽

Subgroup Analyses

Background: The findings of trials investigating the effects of L-carnitine administration on serum lipids are inconsistent. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize the effects of L-carnitine intake on serum lipids in patients and healthy individuals. Methods: Two authors independently searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar from 1990 until August 1, 2019, in order to find relevant RCTs. The quality of selected RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Cochrane’s Q test and I-square (I2) statistic were used to determine the heterogeneity across included trials. Weight mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI between the two intervention groups were used to determine pooled effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the source of heterogeneity based on suspected variables such as, participant’s health conditions, age, dosage of L-carnitine, duration of study, sample size, and study location between primary RCTs. Results: Out of 3460 potential papers selected based on keywords search, 67 studies met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that L-carnitine administration led to a significant decrease in triglycerides (WMD: -10.35; 95% CI: -16.43, -4.27), total cholesterol (WMD: -9.47; 95% CI: - 13.23, -5.70) and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations (WMD: -6.25; 95% CI: -9.30, -3.21), and a significant increase in HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (WMD: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.21, 2.57). L-carnitine supplementation did not influence VLDL-cholesterol concentrations. When we stratified studies for the predefined factors such as dosage, and age, no significant effects of the intervention on triglycerides, LDL-C, and HDL-C levels were found. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that L-carnitine administration significantly reduced triglycerides, total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels, and significantly increased HDL-cholesterol levels in the pooled analyses, but did not affect VLDL-cholesterol levels; however, these findings were not confirmed in our subgroup analyses by participant’s health conditions, age, dosage of L-carnitine, duration of study, sample size, and study location.

Download Full-text