Magnification devices for endodontic therapy

  • Review
  • Intervention

Authors

  • Massimo Del Fabbro,

    Corresponding author
    1. Università degli Studi di Milano, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Milan, Italy
    • Massimo Del Fabbro, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, Milan, 20161, Italy. massimo.delfabbro@unimi.it.

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Silvio Taschieri,

    1. Università degli Studi di Milano, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Milan, Italy
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Giovanni Lodi,

    1. Università degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Chirurgiche e Odontoiatriche, Milan, Italy
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Giuseppe Banfi,

    1. University of Milan, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Department of Health Technologies, Milan, Italy
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Roberto L Weinstein

    1. University of Milan, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Department of Health Technologies, Milan, Italy
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Background

After the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics, involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a continuous search for enhancing the visualisation of the surgical field. It is important to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices like surgical microscope, endoscope and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient, in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Objectives

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the effects of endodontic treatment performed with the aid of magnification devices versus endodontic treatment without magnification devices. We also aimed to compare the different magnification devices used in endodontics (microscope, endoscope, magnifying loupes).

Search methods

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 13 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 13 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 13 October 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria

All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing endodontic therapy performed with or without using one or more types of magnification device, as well as randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing two or more magnification devices used as an adjunct to endodontic therapy were considered.

Data collection and analysis

Screening of studies and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.

Main results

No trial could be included in the present review. All of the prospective trials that were identified, all dealing with endodontic surgery, had to be excluded for various reasons. Only one RCT was identified comparing three magnificators (magnifying loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) in endodontic surgery. No RCT was found that compared the outcome of endodontic therapy using or without using a given magnification device.

Authors' conclusions

No conclusions can be drawn from the results of this review as no article was identified in the current literature that satisfied the criteria for inclusion. It is unknown if and how the type of magnification device affects the treatment outcome, considering the high number of factors that may have a significant impact on the success of endodontic surgical procedure. This should be investigated by further long-term RCTs with large sample size.

Technical advantages of magnificators have been widely reported in low evidence level studies, but they should be systematically addressed to know if there can be the clinical indication for using a given magnification device for specific clinical situations, such as for molar teeth, or if they can all be used interchangeably.

Well-designed RCTs should also be performed to determine the true difference in terms of treatment success rates between using or not using a magnification device in both conventional and surgical endodontic treatment, if any exist.

Plain language summary

Magnification devices for endodontic therapy

There are no data to draw conclusions on the effect of adopting either a microscope, an endoscope, or magnifying loupes for better visualisation in endodontic therapy, in terms of clinical outcomes. Though the use of magnification devices has often been associated with technical advantages for the operator and with an improved management of the root canal due to a better visualisation of the operative field, it still has to be demonstrated that their use may lead to an improved treatment success rate. More long-term well-designed randomised trials with a large sample size are needed to address the issues of the present review.

Ancillary