CAROLINE KEARNEY
| CAROLINE KEARNEY |
Caroline Kearney1
Sumin Lee1, Laurel K. Graham2, Frank C. Setzer1
1Endodontics, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine; 2Dental Library, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine
Introduction
Despite efforts to standardize reports, variations exist in reporting outcome for endodontic surgical procedures. This scoping review addressed the following research question: “What outcome measures have been reported in the literature for endodontic surgical treatment?” for the development of future core outcome sets.
Methods
Two search strategies were employed to find evidence in the following databases: Embase; PubMed; Cochrane Library; Dentistry and Oral Science Source; and Proquest databases. The search strategy included the following surgical concepts: "Apicoectomy"[Mesh]; "Periapical Periodontitis/surgery"[Mesh]; "Periapical Diseases/surgery"[Mesh];"Molar/surgery"[Mesh];and "Periapical Abscess/surgery"[Mesh]. Each search was modified to utilize the subject headings of the particular database. These terms were combined with a filter for epidemiological studies (epidemiologic studies[Mesh]) and limited to dental journals. The second search was run on the entire database with a filter for epidemiologic studies and controlled trials. Results were uploaded to Covidence, a systematic review software, to allow for citations and data extraction. In addition, a handsearch of relevant textbook chapters was performed. Study designs included in-vivo longitudinal or cross-sectional studies of randomized trials, cohort and case-control studies, or case series with more than 10 subjects in humans with permanent teeth previously endodontically treated and asymptomatic/symptomatic apical periodontitis or chronic/acute apical abscess with surgical procedures carried out by general dentists or specialists.
Results
Of 7072 studies screened, 220 were directly included by two reviewers in a preliminary assessment. Outcome measures identified were: 1. Clinician-centered (survival, two/three-dimensional success/failure, healed/ healing/ diseased state, volumetric lesion reduction - all with/without assessment of symptoms); 2. Patient-centered (patient satisfaction, quality of life, treatment costs); and 3. Research-oriented (histology, periodontal or soft tissue evaluation, postoperative symptoms, adverse effects).
Conclusion
Heterogeneity in outcome reporting limits data standardization. Coherent outcome sets should be developed.