A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effectiveness of hand and rotary instrumentations during biomechanical preparation in primary teeth: an umbrella review with evidence stratification. | LitMetric

Aims/objectives: Biomechanical preparation (BMP) of primary teeth often involves using hand and rotary instruments. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of hand and rotary instruments during BMP in primary teeth.

Methods: A thorough search for relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) was conducted in four databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome assessed was the instrumentation time (IT) for BMP, and the identified SRMAs were qualitatively analysed using the ROBIS tool. Furthermore, quantitative analysis, evidence stratification, and GRADE analysis of eligible SRMAs were performed using the browser-based R package metaumbrella software.

Results: Six SRMAs addressing the research question were included, with five being evaluated as having a high risk of bias (ROB). The findings indicated that the IT required for BMP in primary teeth was 3.2 min less (95% CI = 1.52 to 4.93; I = 96%; P = < 0.001) using rotary instruments compared to hand instruments, with a 'class IV' evidence stratification and 'very low' class of evidence.

Conclusions: Based on the existing evidence, it can be inferred that there is insufficient quality data to recommend the use of rotary instruments over hand instruments in primary teeth.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01080-wDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hand rotary
12
primary teeth
12
bmp primary
12
effectiveness hand
8
biomechanical preparation
8
evidence stratification
8
rotary instruments
8
primary
5
rotary instrumentations
4
instrumentations biomechanical
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!