Comparative evaluation between guided endodontics and conventional techniques for calcific metamorphosis – A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The aim of the study was to review and determine whether guided endodontic treatment or conventional technique is a better treatment alternative for patients with calcific metamorphosis. The review was done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were searched from 2000 to December 2022 for studies reporting the treatment of calcific metamorphosis through guided endodontic treatment or conventional technique. Quality assessment of the included was evaluated using the critical checklist put forward by the Joanna Briggs Institute for case reports, while for the included in vitro studies, the critical checklist put forward by the Critical Appraisal Skills Program was used. Results were plotted through pooled forest plots and publication bias was explored through funnel plots using RevMan (Review manager) 5.3 version. Summary statistic measure in the form of standardized mean difference (SDM) was used. Five studies were included in qualitative synthesis and three studies for quantitative synthesis. The pooled estimate (SMD) of −0.97 (−1.83–0.10) favors guided endodontic treatment employing a random effect model with an I 2 (heterogeneity) value of 83% and a P = 0.03. Publication bias showed symmetric distribution with a systematic heterogeneity. These procedures and techniques are highly promising with better results. Treatments of a minimally invasive nature can be performed, with a reduction in chairside time.