Efficacy of non-instrumental Endodontic treatment in primary teeth: a systematic review of clinical randomized trials.

Background: Endodontic therapy in pediatric dentistry is a challenging procedure, especially for special needs, uncooperative, and very young patients. A new conservative approach which is the non-instrumental endodontic treatment (NIET) has been developed to simplify the management of primary teeth requiring pulpectomy. This review aimed to compare the efficiency of NIET and conventional endodontic treatment in primary teeth. Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Scopus without restrictions on publication year or publication language were searched. Only randomized clinical trials reporting clinical and radiographical outcomes of NIET and conventional pulpectomy on primary teeth were considered eligible. Two reviewers extracted the data according to the PRISMA statement and assessed the bias risk using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and a meta-analysis was performed. Results: From 3322 screened articles, seven articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included. The selected studies included 283 primary molars, of 213 children aged between 3 and 9 years, treated by NIET and conventional pulpectomy, and had follow-up periods ranging from 1 month to tooth exfoliation. Two studies reported good success rates for both the NIET technique and endodontic therapy with no statistically significant difference while three studies showed radiographical significant differences with a low success rate for the NIET technique. Only one study reported better outcomes in the pulpectomy group with statistically significant differences. The quantitative grouping of the included studies showed no significant differences between NIET and conventional endodontic therapy regarding clinical and radiographical success (p value > 0.05). Conclusion: No difference between the NIET technique and the conventional endodontic therapy in primary molars requiring pulpectomy could be confirmed. Results of the present review need to be interpreted with caution since the quality of evidence according to the GRADE was considered as moderate to very low. Therefore, additional clinical trials on the NIET technique are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]