Baixe o app para aproveitar ainda mais
Prévia do material em texto
REVIEW Endotoxin levels after chemomechanical preparation of root canals with sodium hypochlorite or chlorhexidine: a systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analysis P. Neelakantan1 , D. R. Herrera2 , V. G. A. Pecorari3 & B. P. F. A. Gomes2 1Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; 2Department of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics Division, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Piracicaba, SP; and 3Dental Research Division, School of Dentistry, Paulista University, S~ao Paulo, SP, Brazil Abstract Neelakantan P, Herrera DR, Pecorari VGA, Gomes BPFA. Endotoxin levels after chemomechanical preparation of root canals with sodium hypochlorite or chlorhexidine: a systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analysis. Interna- tional Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 2019. Aim The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: in patients with pri- mary endodontic infection, is there a statistically sig- nificant difference in the endotoxin levels after chemomechanical preparation with sodium hypochlo- rite (NaOCl) or chlorhexidine (CHX)? Methodology A protocol was prepared and regis- tered on PROSPERO (CRD42017069996). Four elec- tronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMeb, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were searched from their start dates to 1 March 2017 using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and reviewed following PRISMA (Pre- ferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta- Analyses) guidelines. Only clinical trials (randomized and nonrandomized) that compared the effectiveness of NaOCl and CHX to reduce endotoxins during chemome- chanical preparation of teeth with primary endodontic infection were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality using the risk of bias tool. Results From 712 articles that resulted from the ini- tial search, 37 studies were included for full-text appraisal; four studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis. A single meta-analysis was per- formed to compare the endotoxin levels before and after chemomechanical preparation with NaOCl or CHX. The forest plot of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) levels indi- cated that the data were heterogeneous [I2 = 63.9%; Tau2 = 574.5 (P = 0.04)]. The use of NaOCl and CHX during chemomechanical preparation significantly reduced the LPS levels compared to the initial ones. Conclusions Chemomechanical canal preparation with both NaOCl and CHX reduced the endotoxin levels compared to the initial ones found in primary endodontic infections. When NaOCl was used during chemomechan- ical preparation, endotoxins levels were lower than those obtained after chemomechanical preparation with CHX. Keywords: chlorhexidine, endotoxin, root canal infection, sodium hypochlorite. Received 20 March 2018; accepted 6 June 2018 Introduction Chemomechanical preparation of the root canal sys- tem involves a combination of mechanical instrumen- tation and chemical disinfection in order to enlarge, clean and shape the root canal. Despite these Correspondence: Brenda P.F.A. Gomes, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics Division, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Av. Limeira 901, Bairro Areao, Piracicaba, S~ao Paulo, CEP 13414-903, Brazil (e-mail: bpgomes@fop.unicamp.br). International Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 2019© 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd doi:10.1111/iej.12963 19 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3025-7598 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3025-7598 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3025-7598 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8952-1202 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8952-1202 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8952-1202 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-5697 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-5697 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-5697 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-0646 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-0646 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-0646 strategies, sterilization of the radicular space does not appear to be a clinical reality, due to the complex anatomy of the root canal system (Ahmed et al. 2017). Bacteria left within the root canal system could be a cause of persistent or reinfection if they gain access to the periradicular tissues following root filling (Gomes et al. 2009). This evokes an intense inflamma- tory response (Seymour & Gemmell 2001), which leads to severe destruction of periapical tissues, known as apical periodontitis (Kawashima & Stashenko 1999, Ribeiro-Sobrinho et al. 2002, Martinho et al. 2010, 2011, 2012). Although the microbiome of endodontic infections is highly varied, a strong correlation has been found between the by-products of Gram-negative bacteria, such as endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide/LPS) and apical periodontitis, in teeth with primary endodontic infec- tions (Jacinto et al. 2005, Vianna et al. 2007, Mart- inho & Gomes 2008, Gomes et al. 2012, Sousa et al. 2014, Martinho et al. 2017). LPS is one of the most important virulent factors involved in the develop- ment of periapical inflammation (Pitts et al. 1982, Hong et al. 2004). Hence, it is important that the pro- cess of chemomechanical preparation must also focus on reducing LPS to a level that initiates periradicular tissue healing, rather than just reducing/eliminating microorganisms and infected tissues (Gomes et al. 2009). However, such a threshold value of the infec- tious content remains unknown (Siqueira & Rôc�as 2008, Xavier et al. 2013, Herrera et al. 2017). Association of irrigants such as sterile water or sal- ine with instrumentation may help in reducing the number of bacteria and endotoxins in infected root canals, but irrigating agents with broad-spectrum antimicrobial action [known as chemical auxiliary substances] should be used to achieve a significantly better disinfection (Gomes et al. 2009). Additionally, the chemical auxiliary substances should be able to dissolve organic soft tissue, inactivate bacterial viru- lence factors, disrupt biofilm during root canal instru- mentation, have low cytotoxicity, serve as lubricants for instruments, remove the smear layer and be com- patible with the periradicular tissues (Ordinola-Zapata et al. 2012, Stojicic et al. 2013, Neelakantan et al. 2015, Martinho et al. 2018). Several chemical substances have been proposed and used as irrigants during the chemomechanical preparation of root canals, including sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), chlorhexidine (CHX) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). NaOCl is the most widely used chemical auxiliary substance in root canal treatment because of its effective antimicrobial activity, ability to dissolve organic tissues and its rea- sonable price combined with availability from several commercial sources (Zehnder 2006). The tissue dis- solving ability of NaOCl is directly related to its con- centration, which is also related to its ability to irritate the periapical tissues (Hulsmann & Hahn 2000). Alternative irrigation strategies should be con- sidered to avoid the adverse side effects of NaOCl extrusion into the periradicular tissues. Chlorhexidine has demonstrated antimicrobial action against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bac- teria similar to NaOCl (Zehnder 2006, Gomes et al. 2013, Rôc�as et al. 2016), as well as its cytotoxicity (Babich et al. 1995, Ok et al. 2015), however, with lower caustic effects on host tissues (Basrani & Lem- onie 2005). Additionally, CHX is absorbed on nega- tively charged surfaces in the mouth, such as enamel, dentine, cementum, mucosa and restorative materials, and is released slowly from these retention sites, thereby maintaining prolonged antimicrobial activity (Khademi et al. 2006, Herrera et al. 2016). This pro- cess is known as substantivity and is claimed to be a potential advantage of CHX when used as an irrigant and intracanal medicament during root canal treat- ment (Khademi etal. 2006, Gomes et al. 2013). A systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of NaOCl and CHX on root canal disinfection and reported no significant difference between both sub- stances (Gonc�alves et al. 2016). However, the afore- mentioned review did not study the effect of NaOCl and CHX on endotoxin reduction per se, in detail, but reported that neither NaOCl nor CHX was effective in eliminating LPS from primary infections of the root canal, based on one study (Gomes et al. 2009). Hence, the aim of this review was to address the fol- lowing question: In patients with primary endodontic infection, is there a statistically significant difference in the endotoxin levels after chemomechanical prepa- ration with NaOCl or CHX? Materials and methods Study design This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Sys- tematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines (Moher et al. 2009, Shamseer et al. 2015) and regis- tered with the public registry of systematic review PROSPERO (CRD42017069996). Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation Neelakantan et al. © 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdInternational Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 201920 PICO A research question was constructed based on the PICO principles: Population (patients with the need of endodontic treatment due to root canal infection in permanent teeth), Intervention (chemomechanical preparation during endodontic treatment), Compar- ison [chemical auxiliary substances (NaOCl and CHX used during chemomechanical preparation), and Outcome (reduction of endotoxin)]. The research question was finally defined as follows: In patients with primary endodontic infection, is there a statistically significant difference in the endotoxin levels after chemomechanical preparation with NaOCl or CHX? Search strategy To identify clinical trials to be included in this review, the search strategy covered electronic databases from their start dates to March 2017 in: Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. In addition, hand searching was performed for additional relevant publications and the related articles were searched in the PubMed database. Key words and Medical Subject Heading terms used for search were: ‘root canal’ and ‘endodontic’; each of these terms was combined (by Boolean operators AND/OR), with each of the following terms, ‘endo- toxin’, ‘lipopolysaccharide’ and ‘LPS’. Eligibility criteria Duplicates (articles appearing in more than one data- base) were considered only once. Then, titles and abstracts of the papers were carefully appraised to remove articles that were not endodontic in nature or out of scope. If the title and abstract were not clear, full text was obtained to explore the paper prior to be excluded. Following this step, full texts of the papers were obtained for further analysis. The references of the selected articles were searched for any potential arti- cles to be included. Papers were included only if they: (i) Compared the effectiveness of NaOCl and CHX on endotoxin reduction, (ii) made the comparison in per- manent teeth, (iii) the infections were primary in nat- ure, (iv) made a measurement of endotoxin levels before intervention, (v) were in vivo studies in humans, (vi) publication in English. The above analy- ses were done by two independent reviewers (BPFAG, PN), and in case of disagreement, consensus was reached after discussion with a third reviewer (DRH). Risk of bias Quality assessment of the included trials was evalu- ated independently by the three authors using the guidelines presented by The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine—CEBM, University of Oxford, UK (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group). The assessment criteria contained the following domains: (i) Was the random allocation sequence generated properly? (Yes/ No/Unclear); (ii) Has the exclusion criteria been thor- oughly explored? (Yes/No/Unclear), (iii) Have the results been sufficiently analysed? (Yes/No/Unclear). During data extraction and quality assessment, any disagreements of specific studies between the review- ers were resolved through discussion, and if needed, by the involvement of a fourth author. For each aspect of the quality assessment, risk of bias was scored based on the Cochrane criteria, described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0 (http://handbook.cochra ne.org). The judgement for each entry involved recording ‘yes’ indicating low risk of bias, ‘no’ indicat- ing high risk of bias, and ‘unclear’ indicating either lack of information or uncertainty over the potential for bias. If one or more criteria were not met, the study was scored as ‘high’ risk of bias. When the study was judged as ‘unclear’ in their key domains, an attempt was made to contact the authors to obtain more information and enable a definitive judgement of ‘low’ or ‘high’ risk. Studies with similar interventions and outcome measures were considered for quantita- tive synthesis by way of meta-analysis. Quantitative synthesis Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. All analyses were conducted using RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3 software, Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Results Summary of included studies Figure 1 summarizes the search strategy process. The initial electronic search identified 712 potential studies. After the database screening and removal of duplicates, Neelakantan et al. Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation International Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 2019© 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 21 http://handbook.cochrane.org http://handbook.cochrane.org 385 studies were identified. However, 348 papers were excluded because there did not match the inclusion cri- teria. The full texts of 37 studies were assessed for eligi- bility and 33 were excluded because they (i) were done in retreatment cases, (ii) were done in primary teeth, (iii) did not report initial levels of LPS, (iv) did not com- pare NaOCl and CHX and (v) were done in teeth with vital pulps. Finally, four clinical trials were identified to inform this review (Gomes et al. 2009, Xavier et al. 2013, Marinho et al. 2014, 2015). General characteristics Characteristics of studies comparing the effectiveness of NaOCl and CHX on LPS reduction after chemome- chanical preparation are tabulated (Table 1). The four selected studies included only primary endodontic infection of single-rooted teeth with a single canal and radiographic evidence of apical periodontitis. Patients who had received antibiotic treatment during the past 3 months and/or periodontal disease had Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram representing the systematic review process. Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation Neelakantan et al. © 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdInternational Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 201922 been excluded from these studies. None of the patients reported spontaneous pain. Two studies used the Turbidimetric Kinetic Assay (Marinho et al. 2014, 2015), one study used the Chromogenic Endpoint Assay (QCL; Gomes et al. 2009), and one used the Chromogenic Kinetic Assay (Xavier et al. 2013) to assess LPS levels. Despite the heterogeneity of the laboratory methods, meta-analy sis could be performed. Three of the selected studies used 2.5% NaOCl and 2% CHX (Gomes et al. 2009, Marinho et al. 2014, 2015), whilst one used 1% NaOCl and 2% for CHX (Xavier et al. 2013). Risk of bias The assessment of risk of bias of the selected studies is presented (Fig. 2). None of the selected full-text studies reported the method of randomization. As this item was a key domain in the current systematic review, the authors were contacted to obtain additional informa- tion. With the informationabout randomization, three studies were considered to be at ‘low’ risk of bias (Gomes et al. 2009, Marinho et al. 2014, 2015) and one was graded as ‘unclear’ (Xavier et al. 2013). All the four trials described the exclusion criteria and anal- ysed the results according to the specific purpose of each study. Thus, all the four articles were considered to be at ‘low’ risk of bias in this domain. Quantitative synthesis Meta-analyses were performed on the four studies. Only one study provided data in mean and standard deviation of LPS values (Marinho et al. 2015) and it was necessary to request this information from the authors of the other studies (Gomes et al. 2009, Xavier et al. 2013, Marinho et al. 2014). Significantly higher values of endotoxin reduction were reported by Gomes et al. (2009) and Marinho et al. (2015) when NaOCl was used during chemomechanical preparation. On the other hand, Xavier et al. (2013) and Marinho et al. (2014) did not report differences between NaOCl and CHX LPS reduction. A single meta-analysis was performed for the endotoxin levels obtained in the four studies before and after chemo- mechanical preparation with NaOCl or CHX. Figure 3 shows the forest plot for LPS levels. The preoperative levels of LPS were higher in the NaOCl groups in the four studies. The forest plot of LPS after chemomechanical preparation indicated that the data were heterogeneous [I2 = 63.9%; Tau2 = 574.5T a b le 1 S u m m a ry o f th e q u a li ta ti v e ch a ra ct er is ti cs o f th e st u d ie s in cl u d ed in th e sy st em a ti c re v ie w A u th o r, y e a r/ C o u n tr y W a s th e cl in ic a l tr ia l d e si g n cl e a rl y d e fi n e d ? W e re th e in te rv e n ti o n s cl e a rl y d e fi n e d ? W a s th e co n ce n tr a ti o n o f N a O C l a n d C H X cl e a rl y e st a b li sh e d ? W a s th e la b o ra to ry m e th o d u se d to a ss e ss L P S le v e ls cl e a rl y in fo rm e d ? W a s th e ra ti o n a le fo r th e ch o se n sa m p le si ze e x p la in e d ? W e re N a O C l a n d g ro u p s ra n d o m iz e d a m o n g st p a rt ic ip a n ts ? W a s th e ty p e o f ra n d o m iz a ti o n re p o rt e d ? W a s th e cl in ic a l o p e ra to r b li n d e d re g a rd in g th e ir ri g a n t? W a s th e st a ti st ic a l p ro ce d u re s cl e a rl y in fo rm e d ? G o m e s e t a l. (2 0 0 9 )/ B ra zi l Y e s Y e s Y e s: 2 .5 % N a O C l/ 2 % C H X g e l Y e s: C h ro m o g e n ic E n d p o in t A ss a y (Q C L ) N o Y e sa N o a N o Y e s X a v ie r e t a l. (2 0 1 3 )/ B ra zi l Y e s Y e s Y e s: 1 % N a O C l/ 2 % C H X g e l Y e s: C h ro m o g e n ic K in e ti c A ss a y (K Q C L ) N o Y e s N o N o Y e s M a ri n h o e t a l. (2 0 1 4 )/ B ra zi l Y e s Y e s Y e s: 2 .5 % N a O C l/ 2 % C H X g e l Y e s: T u rb id im e tr ic K in e ti c A ss a y N o Y e sa N o a N o Y e s M a ri n h o e t a l. (2 0 1 5 )/ B ra zi l Y e s Y e s Y e s: 2 .5 % N a O C l/ 2 % C H X g e l Y e s: T u rb id im e tr ic K in e ti c A ss a y N o Y e sa N o a N o Y e s a A u th o rs p ro v id e d e x tr a in fo rm a ti o n b y e -m a il . Neelakantan et al. Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation International Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 2019© 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 23 (P = 0.04)]. Results indicated that levels of LPS in groups treated with NaOCl were lower than those treated with CHX. Discussion This systematic review provides level 1 evidence that is based on the criteria given by the CEBM, University of Oxford (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group). The main conclusion that can be drawn from this review is that endotoxin levels after chemomechanical preparation, either with NaOCl or CHX are lower than the initial ones; with NaOCl being more effective in reducing endotoxin levels, compared to CHX. This detoxifying activity during chemomechanical prepara- tion is attributed to the mechanical action of the instruments against dentine walls and the flow and back-flow of the irrigants, irrespective of which sub- stance was used (Gomes et al. 2009, Xavier et al. 2013, Marinho et al. 2015). However, the results of this review also showed that both agents did not elim- inate LPS from root canals. Four studies were included for meta-analysis in this review. The underlying heterogeneity of the included studies presents limitations; however, the included studies were reported as a ‘low’ risk of bias and there is a low possibility that the effect size be overestimated (Schulz et al. 1995). With regards to randomization, all the four selected studies stated that random distri- bution of participants was done, but did not describe the method of randomization, something that is not uncommon to observe in several clinical trials. Although this could be graded as ‘unclear’ according to the Cochrane criteria, it was decided to contact the authors to confirm the method of randomization. Authors of three studies reported randomization by shuffling envelopes (Gomes et al. 2009, Marinho et al. 2014, 2015). For one study, the information could not be obtained (Xavier et al. 2013), and the grade was maintained as ‘unclear’ for this domain. Blinding is necessary for control of bias in clinical tri- als. Blinding the study participants, health care provi- ders, or data collectors may reduce the risk that the knowledge of which intervention was received, rather than the intervention itself, influences outcomes and outcome measurements (Portney & Watkins 2000). Considering that the primary outcome of this review was differences in LPS levels (which is not a patient- centred response and hence, not susceptible to bias by Figure 3 Forest plot of the change in LPS levels from before to after CMP in the studies included in this review. Figure 2 Summary of the risk of bias assessment according to the review authors’ judgements about each item for each included study. Underlined authors provided extra informa- tion by email to allow assessment of the risk of bias. Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation Neelakantan et al. © 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdInternational Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 201924 the patient’s knowledge of the chemical auxiliary sub- stance used during chemomechanical preparation), blinding was not considered a domain for the quality assessment. Lipopolysaccharide, an outer membrane component of Gram-negative bacteria predominantly involved in root canal infection is an important mediator in the pathogenesis of apical periodontitis by mediating tissue destruction and enhancing the sensation of pain in endodontic infections (Jacinto et al. 2005, Martinho et al. 2012, 2017). This review aimed to obtain infor- mation about reduction in LPS by NaOCl, the most widely used endodontic irrigant, and CHX, a potential chemical auxiliary substance applied in root canal treatment (Siqueira et al. 2007, Gomes et al. 2013). The results of this review revealed lower levels of LPS after chemomechanical preparation either with NaOCl or CHX, despite the NaOCl concentration (1 or 2.5%). However, a desirable outcome, such as LPS- free root canals after chemomechanical preparation was not achieved, regardless of the chemical auxiliary substances used. During chemomechanical prepara- tion, NaOCl and CHX are more effective in reducing bacteria than endotoxin (Vianna et al. 2007, Gomes et al. 2009, Gonc�alves et al. 2016). Moreover, it seems that greater the volume of irrigation used, greater was the LPS reduction (Nakamura et al. 2018). All the four studies included in this review reported a similar sequence and volume of the chemi- cal auxiliary substances used during chemomechani- cal preparation (Gomes et al. 2009, Xavier et al. 2013, Marinho et al. 2014, 2015).The higher initial levels of LPS in the groups allo- cated to NaOCl treatment in all the four studies resulted in a high heterogeneity of data. However, the median percentage of LPS reduction after chemome- chanical preparation was similar for NaOCl and CHX groups, confirming the comparable action of both substances at the tested concentrations. Only Xavier et al. (2013) used 1% NaOCl, whilst the other authors used 2.5%. All the four studies used 2% CHX. There is no available evidence to affirm that reduction in endotoxin by NaOCl is concentration dependent, as the selected studies did not use higher concentrations. Nevertheless, a recent in vitro study showed that amongst 1%, 2.5% and 5.25% NaOCl, only the last one was able to induce loss of lipid A peaks and LPS bands detection (Marinho et al. 2018). Three common methods were used for quantifying the LPS: Turbidimetric Kinetic Assay (Marinho et al. 2014, 2015), Chromogenic Endpoint Assay (QCL; Gomes et al. 2009) and Chromogenic Kinetic Assay (KQCL; Xavier et al. 2013). The techniques differ in terms of their ability to detect and quantify LPS levels (Martinho & Gomes 2008). Both types of the Chro- mogenic Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) Assay (QCL and KQCL) use a synthetic peptide–pNA substrate, which is cleaved by the clotting enzyme, making the solution yellowish in colour. The turbidimetric kinetic assay is based on monitoring the conversion of coagu- logen to coagulin, which is manifested by an increase in turbidity due to formation of a gel clot. Concentra- tion of endotoxin is determined based on strength of the yellow colour, which is verified in an optical density (OD) at 405 nm in the Chromogenic LAL assay, and in an OD at 340 nm in the Turbidimetric Kinetic Assay. The differences in sensitivity of these assays are due to the different time-points of the progress of the LAL reac- tion leading to the coagulogen conversion. The range of sensitivity is 0.1–1 EU mL�1 for the Chromogenic LAL assay, and 0.01–100 EU mL�1 for the Turbidimet- ric LAL assay (Martinho et al. 2017). The type of test used may have an impact on the effect size in terms of endotoxin quantification (Mart- inho & Gomes 2008). The KQCL test yields a median value of endotoxin close to and not significantly differ- ent from that of the turbidimetric kinetic test whereas the QCL method demonstrates a median value of endo- toxin approximately five times greater than the afore- mentioned tests (Martinho & Gomes 2008). Within the kinetic methods, differences could be related to the principle (i.e. agent used), time taken for adding reagents to multiple wells and inability to control the incubation temperature of microplate readers. The interassay coefficients of variation between these two tests have been shown to be lower than 25% as expected (Martinho & Gomes 2008). On the other hand, the increase in estimation of LPS in the QCL approach indicates an interference with the LAL sub- strate by the samples. This was shown by an inhibi- tion/enhancement assay (spiked values lower than 0.4 EU mL�1), even after serial dilutions of the clinical samples (up to 104; Martinho & Gomes 2008). Finally, this review highlights an important problem in the evidence base of LPS reduction during chemome- chanical preparation. The validity of the results in clini- cal trials is influenced by sample sizes. Studies with small or insufficient sample sizes are at a higher risk of being underpowered, potentially giving rise to type II errors and null trial outcomes (Biau et al. 2008). Although none of the four clinical trials included in this review reported sample size calculations (Gomes et al. Neelakantan et al. Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation International Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 2019© 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 25 2009, Xavier et al. 2013, Marinho et al. 2014, 2015), all of them used at least 10 samples per group (varying from 10 to 27), with similar initial levels of LPS, which seems to be a ‘big enough’ sample. However, it is important to stress that further design and reports of randomized controlled trials must include the sample size calculation and the description of the randomiza- tion method used. These would avoid contact with the authors and would decrease the risk of obtaining an underpowered randomized evaluation. Conclusions Chemomechanical canal preparation with both, NaOCl and CHX, reduced the endotoxin levels compared to the initial ones found in primary endodontic infections. When NaOCl was used during chemomechanical preparation, endotoxins levels were lower than those obtained after chemomechanical preparation with CHX. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Maicon Ricardo Zieberg and Ana Regina de Oliveira Polay for their technical sup- port. We would like also to thank Heloisa Maria Cec- cotti from the Library of the Piracicaba Dental School for all her help and assistance during this review. This work was supported by the Brazilian agencies S~ao Paulo Research Foundation-FAPESP (2015/ 23479-5), National Council for Scientific and Techno- logical Development-CNPq (308162/2014-5) and Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education and Graduate Training Personnel CAPES. Conflict of interest Dr. Gomes reports grants from FAPESP, CNPq and CAPES during the conduct of the study. Dr. Herrera reports grants from CAPES during the conduct of the study. The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. References Ahmed HMA, Versiani MA, De-Deus G, Dummer PMH (2017) A new system for classifying root and root canal morphology. International Endodontic Journal 50, 761–70. Babich H, Wurzburger BJ, Rubin YL, Sinensky MC, Blau L (1995) An in vitro study on the cytotoxicity of chlorhexi- dine digluconate to human gingival cells. Cell Biology & Toxicology 11, 79–88. Basrani B, Lemonie C (2005) Chlorhexidine gluconate. Aus- tralian Endodontic Journal 31, 48–52. Biau DJ, Kerneis S, Porcher R (2008) Statistics in brief: the importance of sample size in the planning and interpreta- tion of medical research. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 466, 2282–8. Gomes BP, Martinho FC, Vianna ME (2009) Comparison of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 2% chlorhexidine gel on oral bacterial lipopolysaccharide reduction from primarily infected root canals. Journal of Endodontics 35, 1350–3. Gomes BP, Endo MS, Martinho FC (2012) Comparison of endotoxin levels found in primary and secondary endodon- tic infections. Journal of Endodontics 38, 1082–6. Gomes BP, Vianna ME, Zaia AA, Almeida JF, Souza-Filho FJ, Ferraz CC (2013) Chlorhexidine in endodontics. Brazilian Dental Journal 24, 89–102. Gonc�alves LS, Rodrigues RC, Andrade Junior CV, Soares RG, Vettore MV (2016) The effect of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine as irrigant solutions for root canal disinfec- tion: a systematic review of clinical trials. Journal of Endodontics 42, 527–32. Herrera DR, Durand-Ramirez JE, Falcao A, Silva EJ, Santos EB, Gomes BP (2016) Antimicrobial activity and substan- tivity of Uncaria tomentosa in infected root canal dentin. Brazilian Oral Research 30, e61. Herrera DR, Martinho FC, de-Jesus-Soares A et al. (2017) Clinical efficacy of EDTA ultrasonic activation in the reduction of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria. Interna- tional Endodontic Journal 50, 933–40. Hong CY, Lin SK, Kok SH et al. (2004) The role of lipopolysaccharide in infectious bone resorption of periapi- cal lesion. Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine 33, 162–9. Hulsmann M, Hahn W (2000) Complications during root canal irrigation–literature review and case reports. Interna- tional Endodontic Journal 33, 186–93. Jacinto RC, Gomes BP, Shah HN, Ferraz CC, Zaia AA, Souza- Filho FJ (2005) Quantification of endotoxins in necrotic root canals from symptomatic and asymptomaticteeth. Journal of Medical Microbiology 54, 777–83. Kawashima N, Stashenko P (1999) Expression of bone- resorptive and regulatory cytokines in murine periapical inflammation. Archives of Oral Biology 44, 55–66. Khademi AA, Mohammadi Z, Havaee A (2006) Evaluation of the antibacterial substantivity of several intra-canal agents. Australian Endodontic Journal 32, 112–5. Marinho AC, Martinho FC, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC, Gomes BP (2014) Monitoring the effectiveness of root canal proce- dures on endotoxin levels found in teeth with chronic apical periodontitis. Journal of Applied Oral Science 22, 490–5. Marinho AC, Martinho FC, Leite FR, Nascimento GG, Gomes BP (2015) Proinflammatory activity of primarily infected endodontic content against macrophages after different phases of the root canal therapy. Journal of Endodontics 41, 817–23. Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation Neelakantan et al. © 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdInternational Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 201926 Marinho ACS, To TT, Darveau RP, Gomes BP (2018) Detection and function of lipopolysaccharide and its purified lipid A after treatment with auxiliary chemical substances and calcium hydroxide dressings used in endodontic therapy. International Endodontic Journal https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12920. Martinho FC, Gomes BP (2008) Quantification of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria in root canal infection before and after chemomechanical preparation with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. Journal of Endodontics 34, 268–72. Martinho FC, Chiesa WM, Leite FR, Cirelli JA, Gomes BP (2010) Antigenic activity of bacterial endodontic contents from pri- mary root canal infection with periapical lesions against macrophage in the release of interleukin-1beta and tumor necrosis factor alpha. Journal of Endodontics 36, 1467–74. Martinho FC, Chiesa WM, Leite FR, Cirelli JA, Gomes BP (2011) Antigenicity of primary endodontic infection against macrophages by the levels of PGE(2) production. Journal of Endodontics 37, 602–7. Martinho FC, Chiesa WMM, Leite FRM, Cirelli JA, Gomes BPFA (2012) Correlation between clinical/radiographic features and inflammatory cytokine networks produced by macrophages stimulated with endodontic content. Journal of Endodontics 38, 740–5. Martinho FC, de Rabello DGD, Ferreira LL, Nascimento GG (2017) Participation of endotoxin in root canal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Dentistry 11, 398–406. Martinho FC, Gomes CC, Nascimento GG, Gomes APM, Leite FRM (2018) Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of 7- and 14-day intracanal medications in root canal disinfection and inflammatory cytokines. Clinical Oral Investigations 22, 523–30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epi- demiology 62, 1006–12. Nakamura VC, Pinheiro ET, Prado LC et al. (2018) Effect of ultrasonic activation on the reduction of bacteria and endotoxins in root canals: a randomized clinical trial. International Endodontic Journal 51(Suppl 1), e12–22. Neelakantan P, Cheng CQ, Ravichandran V et al. (2015) Photoactivation of curcumin and sodium hypochlorite to enhance antibiofilm efficacy in root canal dentin. Photodi- agnosis and Photodynamic Therapy 12, 108–14. Ok E, Adanir N, Hakk S (2015) Comparison of cytotoxicity of various concentrations origanum extract solution with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlo- rite. European Journal of Dentistry 9, 6–10. Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Cavenago B et al. (2012) Antimicrobial effect of endodontic solutions used as final irrigants on a dentine biofilm model. International Endodon- tic Journal 45, 162–8. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2016) The Oxford levels of evi- dence 2. URL https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 Pitts DL, Williams BL, Morton TH Jr (1982) Investigation of the role of endotoxin in periapical inflammation. Journal of Endodontics 8, 10–8. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ribeiro-Sobrinho AP, de Melo Maltos SM, Farias LM et al. (2002) Cytokine production in response to endodontic infection in germ-free mice. Oral microbiology and Immunol- ogy 17, 344–53. Rôc�as IN, Provenzano JC, Neves MA, Siqueira JF Jr (2016) Disinfecting effects of rotary instrumentation with either 2.5% sodium hypochlorite or 2% chlorhexidine as the main irrigant: a randomized clinical study. Journal of Endodontics 42, 943–7. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality asso- ciated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 273, 408–12. Seymour GJ, Gemmell E (2001) Cytokines in periodontal dis- ease: where to from here? Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 59, 167–73. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al. (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. British Medical Journal 350, g7647. Siqueira JF Jr, Rôc�as IN (2008) Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment proce- dures. Journal of Endodontics 34, 1291–301.e3. Siqueira JF Jr, Rôc�as IN, Paiva SS, Guimaraes-Pinto T, Magalhaes KM, Lima KC (2007) Bacteriologic investiga- tion of the effects of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexi- dine during the endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics 104, 122–30. Sousa EL, Martinho FC, Nascimento GG, Leite FR, Gomes BP (2014) Quantification of endotoxins in infected root canals and acute apical abscess exudates: monitoring the effec- tiveness of root canal procedures in the reduction of endo- toxins. Journal of Endodontics 40, 177–81. Stojicic S, Amorim H, Shen Y, Haapasalo M (2013) Ex vivo killing of Enterococcus faecalis and mixed plaque bac- teria in planktonic and biofilm culture by modified pho- toactivated disinfection. International Endodontic Journal 46, 649–59. Vianna ME, Horz HP, Conrads G, Zaia AA, Souza-Filho FJ, Gomes BP (2007) Effect of root canal procedures on endo- toxins and endodontic pathogens. Oral Microbiology and Immunology 22, 411–8. Xavier AC, Martinho FC, Chung A et al. (2013) One-visit versus two-visit root canal treatment: effectiveness in the removal of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria. Journal of Endodontics 39, 959–64. Zehnder M (2006) Root canal irrigants. Journal of Endodontics 32, 389–98. Neelakantan et al. Endotoxin levels after root canal preparation International Endodontic Journal, 52, 19–27, 2019© 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 27 https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12920 https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
Compartilhar