Are single-visit regenerative endodontic procedures successful in treating non-vital, immature young permanent teeth?

Abstract

Design Systematic review.Data sources PubMed and Scopus databases were searched independently by two authors from inception to July 2018 using keywords and index words combined using Boolean terms. Articles were restricted to English and were not excluded based on study design. Conference proceedings, grey literature, letters and commentaries were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Demographic data (age, sex), study design, pulpal and periapical pre-treatment diagnosis, pre-operative radiographic findings, intra-operative disinfection protocol, intracanal coronal barrier, duration of follow-up, and clinical and/or radiographic and/or histological outcomes after completion of single-visit regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) on non-vital, immature permanent teeth. Quality of included case reports were assessed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials was done using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The quality of the animal study was assessed by the SYRCLE risk of bias assessment tool.Results A total of five case reports, one randomised controlled trial and one animal study were included in the final analysis. All case reports were rated as high quality while the randomised controlled trial was rated moderate-to-low risk of bias. Case reports and the animal study favoured single-visit REPs, while the results from the randomised trial reported only 50% success. Within this limited pool of studies, there were differences in aetiology, location, disinfection protocol (different concentrations of NaOCl and EDTA, saline, chlorhexidine), follow-up time intervals and subjective reporting of radiographic healing, making syntheses challenging.Conclusions Single-visit REPs may offer benefits of reduced treatment time and visits compared to conventional two-visit REPs.